I don't agree with Topping's mountaineering comparison. It's crass.
However, there are aspects to this that might confuse. There are 'good' mountaineers/hikers/walkers/climbers: people who go up with the correct equipment, judging the conditions, and come unstuck due to a simple mistake or bad luck, such as weather.
Then there are 'mountaineers' (really, people who go up mountains) who wear the wrong kit, don't look at the weather, and carry no equipment to help them. I've seen loads like this, like a couple of people in loafers near the top of Scafell Pike, or jeans and no pack in cold mist on Kinder Scout.
I have much more sympathy with the former than the latter.
I vaguely recall a story about an american chap who decided to pack in the modern world and live off the land in the wild or somesuch, but had no skills, training or proper supplies to do so, not even a map, and he died. Apparently it got made into a relatively sympathetic story and some saw it as a noble pursuit, but local rangers essentially took the view that the chap had effectively (though not intentionally) committed suicide through carelessness.
Local bookseller on a book which wasn't even in the school library (except as an ebook):
'“It was not easy to find a box full of 33 Snowfish, but we did,” he continues. “We sold all that we bought, and we kept a couple as loaners because we wanted to make sure any students in the community could see what the fuss was about. There will always be some around.”
It’s now easier than ever to read 33 Snowfish in Spotsylvania county [...]'
Oh it's publicity gold to an author when their book is banned - it wouldn't surprise me if agents sought to get their author's books banned just for the publicity it generates.
When The Well of Loneliness was banned, Virginia Wolff and Compton Mackenzie were furious that Orlando and Extraordinary Women were not banned at the same time. They felt cheated out of the extra sales a court case would produce.
Oddly, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned at the same time, and not republished for 30 years. And when it was finally published in 1959 the trial caused sales to rocket. Huge numbers of copies were being passed round schools in the hope that they would find the naughty bits.
The key thing linking them of course is that they were all otherwise notably undistinguished books.
See also the Satanic Verses which I've found unreadable both times I've attempted to start it.
The most comical one I worked on was Ulysses, which escaped a formal ban because the lawyer assessing it at the request of the Home Office admitted he had been totally unable to read it. Instead, they launched proceedings under various post office regulations as far as can be judged simply to annoy James Joyce.
Quite amazingly, there is a record of an American magistrate who had somehow read and understood it.
I didn't realise one was supposed to actually understand it. I thought Ulysses was simply a collection of words in a semi-random order that existed to test the patience of the reader.
I made it about six pages in.
It is the only novel I have read twice
Tho I confess I couldn't get past the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake
When I'm sitting in an airport lounge, sleep deprived, unsure what time of day or night it is, then I find rereading novels is a perfect way to pass the time.
A very religious uni friend said something about the bible. He had read it many times, and at times of stress, or boredom, he would pick up a bible and read it: it relaxed him, and the familiarity of the text was like talking to a friend and time would fly.
He also said that reading a different version of the bible was rather jarring, as he noticed the differences.
He presumably means a different English translation, rather than a different version.
Not being religious, I assumed 'version' equated to 'translation'?
I.e. the King James bible is a translation, but also a version?
If you only read it in English, then yes, it's a distinction without a difference. My point was that the reason why you have so many English "versions", and why there are differences between them big enough to feel jarring, is that it's an English translation of a (Latin translation of a) Greek translation of the originals in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The original untranslated versions are all mostly close enough together that you can read different versions without the jarring feeling.
Absolute utter and unqualified balls, every book of the New Testament was originally written in koine Greek.
Yes, but that wasn't the language used by the principals, so translated at that point.
Deary me...we have had the American advisers to US government saying inflation has been solved like Brown said Boom and Bust, now we can solve this problem of inflation with government price controls.
Deary me...we have had the American advisers to US government saying inflation has been solved like Brown said Boom and Bust, now we can solve this problem of inflation with government price controls.
Edouard Mathieu @redouad · 3h I wish people who criticize the UK COVID data spent some time looking into other countries' system, to realize how incredibly lucky they are.
No other large country in the world has a dashboard that's: - So rich and well-designed - Updated on a timely basis - With a working API
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
I've been repeatedly asked by my friends if I wrote the latest series of Boris Johnson Worzel Gummidge.
The latest episode of the BBC’s new Worzel Gummidge sees actors deliver a range of hidden jokes for watching adults, incorporating the naughtiest-sounding bird names they could find.
Red faces as new BBC Worzel Gummidge episode ‘littered’ with sexual innuendos...
....Viewers remarked on the unusual frequency of bird names, including the “red-knobbed coot”, “blue-footed booby” and “penduline tit”.
Isn't there are series of innocent looking children's books that's full of truly obscene double meanings? Such as 'Who will help Jack off the horse?' and 'Brenda's Beaver Plays A Round?'
Although I wont be with you, as I will be taking the 4th booster.
Will that be the booster that infects you with alien-reptile DNA that will reprogram your inner operating system so that you can connect yourself to the new version of the Matrix in which Donald Qanon is President-for-life?
Patients in English hospitals now over 10,000, but still tracking bottom range of Sage scenarios
So Sage were right
Lol. The whole point of the Sage modelling is it encompasses all possible futures. If the reality was outside the ranges they'd quoted, that would be a much bigger story - it would invalidate their modelling almost single-handedly - and the fact that it's inside means almost nothing. The key point is that it's at the bottom of the range, which means that we're fine: if it was tracking the top of the range (and remember, the ranges were absolutely massive), then we would indeed be in trouble.
I don't agree with Topping's mountaineering comparison. It's crass.
However, there are aspects to this that might confuse. There are 'good' mountaineers/hikers/walkers/climbers: people who go up with the correct equipment, judging the conditions, and come unstuck due to a simple mistake or bad luck, such as weather.
Then there are 'mountaineers' (really, people who go up mountains) who wear the wrong kit, don't look at the weather, and carry no equipment to help them. I've seen loads like this, like a couple of people in loafers near the top of Scafell Pike, or jeans and no pack in cold mist on Kinder Scout.
I have much more sympathy with the former than the latter.
Many years ago while I was in Aber, I had gone out early one morning to photograph the scenery after a heavy overnight fall of snow.
Coming back down Constie (the big cliff at the north end with the funicular) in proper mountain boots with thick, grippy rubber soles, very gingerly, I met a couple of younger students walking up. The girl was in high heels. She had no grip at all.
I managed to keep calm and persuaded them to turn around, but my goodness, I was hiding being very angry.
You get that a lot in the Alps in the summer. Typically a couple who have gone up the cable car ‘just to look at the view’ and then decided to wander off along some mountain path.
Deary me...we have had the American advisers to US government saying inflation has been solved like Brown said Boom and Bust, now we can solve this problem of inflation with government price controls.
If you want to see what happens with price controls, look to the energy price caps which are about to get doubled - with all the blame going to the government, rather than to Putin and his band of merry men choking the gas supply.
Local bookseller on a book which wasn't even in the school library (except as an ebook):
'“It was not easy to find a box full of 33 Snowfish, but we did,” he continues. “We sold all that we bought, and we kept a couple as loaners because we wanted to make sure any students in the community could see what the fuss was about. There will always be some around.”
It’s now easier than ever to read 33 Snowfish in Spotsylvania county [...]'
Oh it's publicity gold to an author when their book is banned - it wouldn't surprise me if agents sought to get their author's books banned just for the publicity it generates.
When The Well of Loneliness was banned, Virginia Wolff and Compton Mackenzie were furious that Orlando and Extraordinary Women were not banned at the same time. They felt cheated out of the extra sales a court case would produce.
Oddly, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned at the same time, and not republished for 30 years. And when it was finally published in 1959 the trial caused sales to rocket. Huge numbers of copies were being passed round schools in the hope that they would find the naughty bits.
The key thing linking them of course is that they were all otherwise notably undistinguished books.
See also the Satanic Verses which I've found unreadable both times I've attempted to start it.
The most comical one I worked on was Ulysses, which escaped a formal ban because the lawyer assessing it at the request of the Home Office admitted he had been totally unable to read it. Instead, they launched proceedings under various post office regulations as far as can be judged simply to annoy James Joyce.
Quite amazingly, there is a record of an American magistrate who had somehow read and understood it.
I didn't realise one was supposed to actually understand it. I thought Ulysses was simply a collection of words in a semi-random order that existed to test the patience of the reader.
I made it about six pages in.
It is the only novel I have read twice
Tho I confess I couldn't get past the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake
When I'm sitting in an airport lounge, sleep deprived, unsure what time of day or night it is, then I find rereading novels is a perfect way to pass the time.
A very religious uni friend said something about the bible. He had read it many times, and at times of stress, or boredom, he would pick up a bible and read it: it relaxed him, and the familiarity of the text was like talking to a friend and time would fly.
He also said that reading a different version of the bible was rather jarring, as he noticed the differences.
He presumably means a different English translation, rather than a different version.
Not being religious, I assumed 'version' equated to 'translation'?
I.e. the King James bible is a translation, but also a version?
If you only read it in English, then yes, it's a distinction without a difference. My point was that the reason why you have so many English "versions", and why there are differences between them big enough to feel jarring, is that it's an English translation of a (Latin translation of a) Greek translation of the originals in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The original untranslated versions are all mostly close enough together that you can read different versions without the jarring feeling.
Absolute utter and unqualified balls, every book of the New Testament was originally written in koine Greek.
He said the Bible, not the New Testament. If he'd said the NT, I would agree with you.
"Visitors to the former home of Bloomsbury artist Vanessa Bell, Virginia Woolf's sister, had complained for years about the potholes. One warned in a review: 'You risk your car's suspension – and you need to wear a sports bra.'"
Yet using emergency funding for private property - it's like the potato famine walls in the Western Islands.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
Deary me...we have had the American advisers to US government saying inflation has been solved like Brown said Boom and Bust, now we can solve this problem of inflation with government price controls.
If you want to see what happens with price controls, look to the energy price caps which are about to get doubled - with all the blame going to the government, rather than to Putin and his band of merry men choking the gas supply.
I posted on here 6+ months ago about how concerned I was hearing one of Biden's big economic advisors saying yes we are going to print a load of money, we aren't too worried about if we don't target it that accurately, it will all work out in the end as inflation has been solved in Western economies.....
Is everyone worried that anti vaxxers will put pressure on the NHS thus locking everyone down.
@JosiasJessop called them murderous bastards. Who are they murdering.
Themselves - and anyone else who dies because ICU beds are taken / blocked by anti-vaxxers who would otherwise have not been so seriously ill.
Slippery slope. What about Mountaineers.
When was the last date the ICU was filled with thousands of Mountaineers?
I'll wait for an answer.
Yes, it is a ridiculous and asinine comparison, and I'm surprised Topping is making it. He is rarely this dim
To invoke mountaineers you'd have to hypothesise a cerebral virus which was forcing people of all ages and sizes to do dangerous sports: causing millions of them to climb mountains, ski glaciers, abseil cliffs, try base jumping, do underwater caving etc, and in the face of this wave if risk taking the government has invented and distributed remarkably effective and FREELY AVAIILABLE new sports equipment - kit that keeps 95% of the users of the equipment out of danger, and out of hospital. Thus saving the health system from collapse
All, that is, except for the mountaineers who continue to insist on going mountaineering without the amazing new equipment because of "civil liberties" "I like the thrill" etc etc thus thousands of mountaineers are now filling the hospitals with their injuries and broken skulls and people with other ordinary illnesses are dying for lack of hospital care. Thanks to the fucking mountaineers
In THAT case it would be judicious to punish the mountaineers, make their lives much harder, maybe even refuse them treatment, until they use the fantastic new dangerous sports kit freely provided to all
I don't agree with Topping's mountaineering comparison. It's crass.
However, there are aspects to this that might confuse. There are 'good' mountaineers/hikers/walkers/climbers: people who go up with the correct equipment, judging the conditions, and come unstuck due to a simple mistake or bad luck, such as weather.
Then there are 'mountaineers' (really, people who go up mountains) who wear the wrong kit, don't look at the weather, and carry no equipment to help them. I've seen loads like this, like a couple of people in loafers near the top of Scafell Pike, or jeans and no pack in cold mist on Kinder Scout.
I have much more sympathy with the former than the latter.
Many years ago while I was in Aber, I had gone out early one morning to photograph the scenery after a heavy overnight fall of snow.
Coming back down Constie (the big cliff at the north end with the funicular) in proper mountain boots with thick, grippy rubber soles, very gingerly, I met a couple of younger students walking up. The girl was in high heels. She had no grip at all.
I managed to keep calm and persuaded them to turn around, but my goodness, I was hiding being very angry.
You get that a lot in the Alps in the summer. Typically a couple who have gone up the cable car ‘just to look at the view’ and then decided to wander off along some mountain path.
One very snowy day a friend of mine met an ill-equipped and lost pair in the Lairig Ghru [trhough valley in the Cairngorm Hills]. He took them down to safety - at the cost of going well out of his way. But ...
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Local bookseller on a book which wasn't even in the school library (except as an ebook):
'“It was not easy to find a box full of 33 Snowfish, but we did,” he continues. “We sold all that we bought, and we kept a couple as loaners because we wanted to make sure any students in the community could see what the fuss was about. There will always be some around.”
It’s now easier than ever to read 33 Snowfish in Spotsylvania county [...]'
Oh it's publicity gold to an author when their book is banned - it wouldn't surprise me if agents sought to get their author's books banned just for the publicity it generates.
When The Well of Loneliness was banned, Virginia Wolff and Compton Mackenzie were furious that Orlando and Extraordinary Women were not banned at the same time. They felt cheated out of the extra sales a court case would produce.
Oddly, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned at the same time, and not republished for 30 years. And when it was finally published in 1959 the trial caused sales to rocket. Huge numbers of copies were being passed round schools in the hope that they would find the naughty bits.
The key thing linking them of course is that they were all otherwise notably undistinguished books.
See also the Satanic Verses which I've found unreadable both times I've attempted to start it.
The most comical one I worked on was Ulysses, which escaped a formal ban because the lawyer assessing it at the request of the Home Office admitted he had been totally unable to read it. Instead, they launched proceedings under various post office regulations as far as can be judged simply to annoy James Joyce.
Quite amazingly, there is a record of an American magistrate who had somehow read and understood it.
I didn't realise one was supposed to actually understand it. I thought Ulysses was simply a collection of words in a semi-random order that existed to test the patience of the reader.
I made it about six pages in.
It is the only novel I have read twice
Tho I confess I couldn't get past the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake
When I'm sitting in an airport lounge, sleep deprived, unsure what time of day or night it is, then I find rereading novels is a perfect way to pass the time.
A very religious uni friend said something about the bible. He had read it many times, and at times of stress, or boredom, he would pick up a bible and read it: it relaxed him, and the familiarity of the text was like talking to a friend and time would fly.
He also said that reading a different version of the bible was rather jarring, as he noticed the differences.
He presumably means a different English translation, rather than a different version.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
Taking back control never felt so good but this is casus belli isn't it?
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Yes, I would agree with you there, for the reason I give above. There are just other reasons for major textual differences as well, which I thought was important to make clearer.
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
I posted a lot earlier Leon.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
Yes, that is possible. On the other hand it looks like Omicron rises and falls steeply and quickly
Like many of us - you too, it seems - I veer between optimism and pessimism, but for the last week or so I have been very mildly optimistic (which is quite a long time for me)
I believe the virus is now, painfully, evolving into something less severe but still horribly infectious (and dangerous, if we get a new variant); perhaps more importantly, human society is adjusting. We are Learning to Live With It. Very few countries are now in total hard lockdown, unlike last winter
It is still fucking shit, and we have more shit to get through, but there is now a hint of a map showing the way out
Taking back control never felt so good but this is casus belli isn't it?
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
Is everyone worried that anti vaxxers will put pressure on the NHS thus locking everyone down.
@JosiasJessop called them murderous bastards. Who are they murdering.
Themselves - and anyone else who dies because ICU beds are taken / blocked by anti-vaxxers who would otherwise have not been so seriously ill.
Slippery slope. What about Mountaineers.
When was the last date the ICU was filled with thousands of Mountaineers?
I'll wait for an answer.
Yes, it is a ridiculous and asinine comparison, and I'm surprised Topping is making it. He is rarely this dim
To invoke mountaineers you'd have to hypothesise a cerebral virus which was forcing people of all ages and sizes to do dangerous sports: causing millions of them to climb mountains, ski glaciers, abseil cliffs, try base jumping, do underwater caving etc, and in the face of this wave if risk taking the government has invented and distributed remarkably effective and FREELY AVAIILABLE new sports equipment - kit that keeps 95% of the users of the equipment out of danger, and out of hospital. Thus saving the health system from collapse
All, that is, except for the mountaineers who continue to insist on going mountaineering without the amazing new equipment because of "civil liberties" "I like the thrill" etc etc thus thousands of mountaineers are now filling the hospitals with their injuries and broken skulls and people with other ordinary illnesses are dying for lack of hospital care. Thanks to the fucking mountaineers
In THAT case it would be judicious to punish the mountaineers, make their lives much harder, maybe even refuse them treatment, until they use the fantastic new dangerous sports kit freely provided to all
A couple of decades ago, a wonderful new piece of tech came along that promised to help people in trouble out on the hills. They were Personal Locator Beacons, which, if activated, send your location to a satellite and call emergency services.
They are used heavily by skiers. Except they were banned in the UK.
Fortunately the ban was overturned in 2012. If I was to do another long and remote walk, I'd get one.
"Visitors to the former home of Bloomsbury artist Vanessa Bell, Virginia Woolf's sister, had complained for years about the potholes. One warned in a review: 'You risk your car's suspension – and you need to wear a sports bra.'"
Yet using emergency funding for private property - it's like the potato famine walls in the Western Islands.
Surely, the Mail has missed an angle here.
The people visiting Vanessa Bell/Duncan Grant's house are the very definition of the Anti-Mail.
Hampstead metrosexuals, who fear for the underwiring on their bras, as they travel on the bumpy road.
(I've been, it is rather lovely if you like Bloomsbury -- as I did when I was 12).
See Nige is on the "Why oh why" warpath again. Specifically why do I need multiple vaccines against a cold? Cos if you're 6 months after a jab it's a heck of a lot more than a cold, as I know too well. Predicted this would happen. Also hearing employers wanting folk back at work pronto as it is "a mild cold". Predicted that too.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Yes, I would agree with you there, for the reason I give above. There are just other reasons for major textual differences as well, which I thought was important to make clearer.
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
I was a thoroughly peaceful and calm individual until I read the bible, after which I believe anyone committing the heinous sin of confusing me should BURN IN HADES forever.
You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
I posted a lot earlier Leon.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
My hospital has installed a fixed multi-user holding ambulance to help unload. There were 25 ambulances on the forecourt tonight as I walked out. It looks pretty grim in terms of capacity.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Yes, I would agree with you there, for the reason I give above. There are just other reasons for major textual differences as well, which I thought was important to make clearer.
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
I was a thoroughly peaceful and calm individual until I read the bible, after which I believe anyone committing the heinous sin of confusing me should BURN IN HADES forever.
Really? That's surprising, given Hades is Greek idea and in any case nothing to do with burning AFAICR.
The idea of hell and burning is chiefly from the Book of Revelation, and it was for a thousand ages rather than for ever.
You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
I posted a lot earlier Leon.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
My hospital has installed a fixed multi-user holding ambulance to help unload. There were 25 ambulances on the forecourt tonight as I walked out. It looks pretty grim in terms of capacity.
Thanks Foxy. But am sorry to hear this as this does not sound good at all.
If you've had your jabs and your booster, it's almost certainly nothing more than a bad cold.
If you're clinically vulnerable, or very old, you can shield, you can go into voluntary lockdown for a couple of months. Or take your chances with it as you would any flu season (my elderly relatives, for example, would rather live out the time they have with family than spend it cowering in their rooms and never seeing anyone).
This variant is contagious enough that not even a strict lockdown could get R below 1. So it's going to go through the population anyway. All another lockdown will achieve is more economic, mental and physical harm on those of us who have done the right thing and gotten jabbed and boosted.
The anti-vax contingent may be in big trouble, however. If it does look like the NHS is going to be overwhelmed then, frankly, at this point f*** 'em.
Open up the nightingale hospitals and give the unvaxxed palliative care only. Prioritise NHS beds for those who have been vaccinated, especially the elderly and clinically vulnerable. Introduce an immediate covid tax on all the unvaccinated. And let it run its course.
It's TINA at this point, with a variant as contagious as omicron. You'll never get the R below 1 again, you won't get enough people complying with total lockdown and people still need to go to work, to deliver food, to man the power stations, to empty the bins. All you will be able to do is inflict a year more of misery and drudgery on the population, until they eventually riot, stop following the rules entirely), or turf you out of office.
The pandemic is over (or will be once the omicron wave sweeps the country), no matter how much you want to proclaim the sky is falling down.
Get your jabs, get your booster, make sure the NHS prioritises vaccinated people and if that means some unjabbed people die off, well that is their choice, just as smokers get lung cancer and alcoholics die of cirrhosis.
If you, my doom-mongering friend, want a real end of the world scenario, consider what happens if China goes into hard lockdown and industry gums up, the economy dies, and our shelves start to resemble a supermarket in Soviet times.
The collapse of global supply chains, hyperinflation, and the resultant political and economic turmoil that comes with it, is a far greater danger than the NHS becoming overwhelmed, or whatever it is the next strain you're worried about.
The danger is no longer a virus, the danger is what happens in a systemic collapse of the global economy and the likely political instability that goes with it. Because that is where locking down indefinitely, time after time, eventually gets you.
The answer is to accept that it is endemic, take your vaccine, get your boosters, get on with life. That is what most of us are doing.
Taking back control never felt so good but this is casus belli isn't it?
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
I suspect it reflects the number of Brits driving through France to holiday homes in Spain, and who have Spanish residency (as some friends of mine do), to visit for the holiday period or the winter. It’s hard to argue that’s essential travel so, if the intention is to prevent non-essential travel, it’s hard to argue with (you can of course argue that the restrictions themselves are pointless - but then so have been most of ours).
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Yes, I would agree with you there, for the reason I give above. There are just other reasons for major textual differences as well, which I thought was important to make clearer.
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
I was a thoroughly peaceful and calm individual until I read the bible, after which I believe anyone committing the heinous sin of confusing me should BURN IN HADES forever.
Really? That's surprising, given Hades is Greek idea and in any case nothing to do with burning AFAICR.
The idea of hell and burning is chiefly from the Book of Revelation, and it was for a thousand ages rather than for ever.
Hey, I didn't say I remembered what I read ...
It was as boring as f***. I didn't connect with it at all, but I was at uni, not sleeping well, and I'd read everything else.
The Quran frightened me, which is why I only read half of it.
Edit: or I could just say I was reading the Jessop translation of the bible, which clearly states 'Hades' and 'forever' ...
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
I am shocked, shocked that the German language is entirely literal.
The interplay between languages, cultures and philosophy is very interesting.
Local bookseller on a book which wasn't even in the school library (except as an ebook):
'“It was not easy to find a box full of 33 Snowfish, but we did,” he continues. “We sold all that we bought, and we kept a couple as loaners because we wanted to make sure any students in the community could see what the fuss was about. There will always be some around.”
It’s now easier than ever to read 33 Snowfish in Spotsylvania county [...]'
Oh it's publicity gold to an author when their book is banned - it wouldn't surprise me if agents sought to get their author's books banned just for the publicity it generates.
When The Well of Loneliness was banned, Virginia Wolff and Compton Mackenzie were furious that Orlando and Extraordinary Women were not banned at the same time. They felt cheated out of the extra sales a court case would produce.
Oddly, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned at the same time, and not republished for 30 years. And when it was finally published in 1959 the trial caused sales to rocket. Huge numbers of copies were being passed round schools in the hope that they would find the naughty bits.
The key thing linking them of course is that they were all otherwise notably undistinguished books.
See also the Satanic Verses which I've found unreadable both times I've attempted to start it.
The most comical one I worked on was Ulysses, which escaped a formal ban because the lawyer assessing it at the request of the Home Office admitted he had been totally unable to read it. Instead, they launched proceedings under various post office regulations as far as can be judged simply to annoy James Joyce.
Quite amazingly, there is a record of an American magistrate who had somehow read and understood it.
I didn't realise one was supposed to actually understand it. I thought Ulysses was simply a collection of words in a semi-random order that existed to test the patience of the reader.
I made it about six pages in.
It is the only novel I have read twice
Tho I confess I couldn't get past the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake
When I'm sitting in an airport lounge, sleep deprived, unsure what time of day or night it is, then I find rereading novels is a perfect way to pass the time.
A very religious uni friend said something about the bible. He had read it many times, and at times of stress, or boredom, he would pick up a bible and read it: it relaxed him, and the familiarity of the text was like talking to a friend and time would fly.
He also said that reading a different version of the bible was rather jarring, as he noticed the differences.
He presumably means a different English translation, rather than a different version.
Not being religious, I assumed 'version' equated to 'translation'?
I.e. the King James bible is a translation, but also a version?
If you only read it in English, then yes, it's a distinction without a difference. My point was that the reason why you have so many English "versions", and why there are differences between them big enough to feel jarring, is that it's an English translation of a (Latin translation of a) Greek translation of the originals in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The original untranslated versions are all mostly close enough together that you can read different versions without the jarring feeling.
Absolute utter and unqualified balls, every book of the New Testament was originally written in koine Greek.
I do like the gentle tones of a quiet theological discussion in the grassy back lawns of the internet.
Celtic and Rangers are Edinburgh's two principal cricket teams. This is that level of misinformation.
Is everyone worried that anti vaxxers will put pressure on the NHS thus locking everyone down.
@JosiasJessop called them murderous bastards. Who are they murdering.
Themselves - and anyone else who dies because ICU beds are taken / blocked by anti-vaxxers who would otherwise have not been so seriously ill.
Slippery slope. What about Mountaineers.
When was the last date the ICU was filled with thousands of Mountaineers?
I'll wait for an answer.
Yes, it is a ridiculous and asinine comparison, and I'm surprised Topping is making it. He is rarely this dim
To invoke mountaineers you'd have to hypothesise a cerebral virus which was forcing people of all ages and sizes to do dangerous sports: causing millions of them to climb mountains, ski glaciers, abseil cliffs, try base jumping, do underwater caving etc, and in the face of this wave if risk taking the government has invented and distributed remarkably effective and FREELY AVAIILABLE new sports equipment - kit that keeps 95% of the users of the equipment out of danger, and out of hospital. Thus saving the health system from collapse
All, that is, except for the mountaineers who continue to insist on going mountaineering without the amazing new equipment because of "civil liberties" "I like the thrill" etc etc thus thousands of mountaineers are now filling the hospitals with their injuries and broken skulls and people with other ordinary illnesses are dying for lack of hospital care. Thanks to the fucking mountaineers
In THAT case it would be judicious to punish the mountaineers, make their lives much harder, maybe even refuse them treatment, until they use the fantastic new dangerous sports kit freely provided to all
A couple of decades ago, a wonderful new piece of tech came along that promised to help people in trouble out on the hills. They were Personal Locator Beacons, which, if activated, send your location to a satellite and call emergency services.
They are used heavily by skiers. Except they were banned in the UK.
Fortunately the ban was overturned in 2012. If I was to do another long and remote walk, I'd get one.
The aviation ELTs have saved literally hundreds of lives in small planes over the past decades, especially over water and hilly areas. Yes, there will be a few false positives, but anyone whose alarm just went off by accident can likely call the S&R centre.
Taking back control never felt so good but this is casus belli isn't it?
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
I have a sense Macron would still be doing this kind of nonsense even if we were still in the EU.....blaming the roast beef is Macron go to criticism.
There's a remarkable interview on Twitter (I might try and locate it when I'm not knackered from tax returning) where a French eurosceptic is interviewed by a French journalist about Franco-British relations. It's a serious interview, the pundit is not a lunatic
Basically, we are doomed to a Cold War with France for years if not decades. Why? Because the super-europhile French view Brexit as an Exocet aimed directly at the greatest project of post-war France - European Unification (under French leadership, begrudgingly shared with Berlin). The EU is all that France really cares about, foreign-policy-wise, as they see it as the only way to assert French power globally, now France is relatively so small, compared to the USA, China, and other rising powers like India
A "successful" Brexit is a mortal and perpetual peril to this ambition. If it is ever seen to happen it will encourage other more reluctant members of the EU tribe (Poland, Hungary, maybe Sweden and Denmark, even Greece and Italy) to copy the UK, thus members will topple away like dominoes and the EU will crumble.
Therefore Brexit cannot succeed, not only that it must be punished continuously, and Britain must be singled out for worse treatment than any other 3rd country, in perpetuity (because the French have no other idea how to handle Brexit, such it their hatred and fear of it)
Hence shit like this. Britain is deliberately being targetted by the Frogs, and this is going to go on for a long, long time, and we can expect no better from any other president - Macron is just more honest in his petulant anger than some
The UK needs to adjust to France as an overtly hostile power, for the long term. Once we accept this we can of course react, accordingly
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
Da liegt der Hund begraben.
Are you suggesting that remark is going to dog me?
'Leaves blowing in the wind' is another one I remember.
But I was talking about peculiar sentence structures rather than metaphors. For example, in Welsh 'I have a car' would literally translate as 'Dw'i'n gael car.' But that is meaningless. The correct translation is 'mae car 'da fi,' which in English would literally translate to 'there is a car with me.' Which means something altogether different.
Similarly 'sorry' is technically 'mae fflin galon 'da fi' or 'mae'n ddrwg calon da fi' which roughly translates to 'there is an unbearable pain with my heart.'* Now if you translated that into English, people might realise you were saying you felt sorry, or they might reach for a defibrillator and ring an ambulance.
*I should point out because that is one hell of a mouthful, most Welsh people just say 'sori.'
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
This is mostly my fault, and I'm happy to agree that it isn't a particularly important difference in the grand scheme of things. However, I don't think it's just about the different underlying texts being used, simply because translation is not an exact science - there are a large number of Old Testament translations around which are translated directly from the Hebrew, and there are significant differences between them in English.
Yes, I would agree with you there, for the reason I give above. There are just other reasons for major textual differences as well, which I thought was important to make clearer.
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
I was a thoroughly peaceful and calm individual until I read the bible, after which I believe anyone committing the heinous sin of confusing me should BURN IN HADES forever.
Really? That's surprising, given Hades is Greek idea and in any case nothing to do with burning AFAICR.
The idea of hell and burning is chiefly from the Book of Revelation, and it was for a thousand ages rather than for ever.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I don't see how they're wrong, unless you wish to counter.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
Sorry, how was I wrong? I've never said Covid is "nothing to worry about". How one responds to the issue is more nuanced. There are many costs to lockdowns, and some have the legitimate view that those costs are not worth bearing.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Which people @CorrectHorseBattery? I am heartened the reports from the front line, matching exactly what was seen in SA. Patients being admitted with Covid, not for Covid. Patients needing less ventilation. The bigger threat seems to be staff sickness and isolation.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
Taking back control never felt so good but this is casus belli isn't it?
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
I have a sense Macron would still be doing this kind of nonsense even if we were still in the EU.....blaming the roast beef is Macron go to criticism.
There's a remarkable interview on Twitter (I might try and locate it when I'm not knackered from tax returning) where a French eurosceptic is interviewed by a French journalist about Franco-British relations. It's a serious interview, the pundit is not a lunatic
Basically, we are doomed to a Cold War with France for years if not decades. Why? Because the super-europhile French view Brexit as an Exocet aimed directly at the greatest project of post-war France - European Unification (under French leadership, begrudgingly shared with Berlin). The EU is all that France really cares about, foreign-policy-wise, as they see it as the only way to assert French power globally, now France is relatively so small, compared to the USA, China, and other rising powers like India
A "successful" Brexit is a mortal and perpetual peril to this ambition. If it is ever seen to happen it will encourage other more reluctant members of the EU tribe (Poland, Hungary, maybe Sweden and Denmark, even Greece and Italy) to copy the UK, thus members will topple away like dominoes and the EU will crumble.
Therefore Brexit cannot succeed, not only that it must be punished continuously, and Britain must be singled out for worse treatment than any other 3rd country, in perpetuity (because the French have no other idea how to handle Brexit, such it their hatred and fear of it)
Hence shit like this. Britain is deliberately being targetted by the Frogs, and this is going to go on for a long, long time, and we can expect no better from any other president - Macron is just more honest in his petulant anger than some
The UK needs to adjust to France as an overtly hostile power, for the long term. Once we accept this we can of course react, accordingly
Good job there's no sign of a successful Brexit then. Phew! Stand down.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
Your opinion is the one I literally value least, you've been consistently wrong on everything since this whole pandemic started. So I will ignore your views.
Local bookseller on a book which wasn't even in the school library (except as an ebook):
'“It was not easy to find a box full of 33 Snowfish, but we did,” he continues. “We sold all that we bought, and we kept a couple as loaners because we wanted to make sure any students in the community could see what the fuss was about. There will always be some around.”
It’s now easier than ever to read 33 Snowfish in Spotsylvania county [...]'
Oh it's publicity gold to an author when their book is banned - it wouldn't surprise me if agents sought to get their author's books banned just for the publicity it generates.
When The Well of Loneliness was banned, Virginia Wolff and Compton Mackenzie were furious that Orlando and Extraordinary Women were not banned at the same time. They felt cheated out of the extra sales a court case would produce.
Oddly, Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned at the same time, and not republished for 30 years. And when it was finally published in 1959 the trial caused sales to rocket. Huge numbers of copies were being passed round schools in the hope that they would find the naughty bits.
The key thing linking them of course is that they were all otherwise notably undistinguished books.
See also the Satanic Verses which I've found unreadable both times I've attempted to start it.
The most comical one I worked on was Ulysses, which escaped a formal ban because the lawyer assessing it at the request of the Home Office admitted he had been totally unable to read it. Instead, they launched proceedings under various post office regulations as far as can be judged simply to annoy James Joyce.
Quite amazingly, there is a record of an American magistrate who had somehow read and understood it.
I didn't realise one was supposed to actually understand it. I thought Ulysses was simply a collection of words in a semi-random order that existed to test the patience of the reader.
I made it about six pages in.
It is the only novel I have read twice
Tho I confess I couldn't get past the third paragraph of Finnegan's Wake
When I'm sitting in an airport lounge, sleep deprived, unsure what time of day or night it is, then I find rereading novels is a perfect way to pass the time.
A very religious uni friend said something about the bible. He had read it many times, and at times of stress, or boredom, he would pick up a bible and read it: it relaxed him, and the familiarity of the text was like talking to a friend and time would fly.
He also said that reading a different version of the bible was rather jarring, as he noticed the differences.
He presumably means a different English translation, rather than a different version.
Not being religious, I assumed 'version' equated to 'translation'?
I.e. the King James bible is a translation, but also a version?
If you only read it in English, then yes, it's a distinction without a difference. My point was that the reason why you have so many English "versions", and why there are differences between them big enough to feel jarring, is that it's an English translation of a (Latin translation of a) Greek translation of the originals in either Aramaic or Hebrew. The original untranslated versions are all mostly close enough together that you can read different versions without the jarring feeling.
Absolute utter and unqualified balls, every book of the New Testament was originally written in koine Greek.
I do like the gentle tones of a quiet theological discussion in the grassy back lawns of the internet.
Celtic and Rangers are Edinburgh's two principal cricket teams. This is that level of misinformation.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
Da liegt der Hund begraben.
Are you suggesting that remark is going to dog me?
'Leaves blowing in the wind' is another one I remember.
But I was talking about peculiar sentence structures rather than metaphors. For example, in Welsh 'I have a car' would literally translate as 'Dw'i'n gael car.' But that is meaningless. The correct translation is 'mae car 'da fi,' which in English would literally translate to 'there is a car with me.' Which means something altogether different.
Similarly 'sorry' is technically 'mae fflin galon 'da fi' or 'mae'n ddrwg calon da fi' which roughly translates to 'there is an unbearable pain with my heart.'* Now if you translated that into English, people might realise you were saying you felt sorry, or they might reach for a defibrillator and ring an ambulance.
*I should point out because that is one hell of a mouthful, most Welsh people just say 'sori.'
How do you say: "I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated." in Welsh?
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I don't see how they're wrong, unless you wish to counter.
Yes they are. Lots of people on here a) certainly didn't say Delta was nothing to worry about and b) are now more relaxed about Omicron...but there is also lots of nuance within that e.g. you can be unconcerned on a personal level, because they have looked at the data and assessed the risk, but that doesn't mean they have zero concern about the wider situation.
Before we had vaccines, I was very much of the opinion to have tougher rather than lack restrictions, now I am much more on the other side. However, that isn't binary, in the way you continue to keep phrasing these statements.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
I don’t recall locking down for delta? Last U.K. lockdown was for alpha aka cockney Covid aka Kent variant. And that ended in stages, but definitely by July 2021.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
We didn't.
We didn't have one for Delta. We had one for Alpha.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
@turbotubbs' post made me realise that I've mixed up my variants...
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I don't see how they're wrong, unless you wish to counter.
Yes they are. Lots of people a) certainly didn't say Delta was nothing to worry about and b) are now more relaxed about Omicron...but there is also lots of nuance e.g. you can be unconcerned on a personal level, because they have looked at the data and assessed the risk, but that doesn't mean they have zero concern about the wider situation.
So who here said we needed a lockdown for Delta and now thinks we don't need to do anything for Omicron.
I'm not seeing anyone. Everyone who was cautious before is cautious now and everyone who was "herd immunity happened, lockdowns don't work" still thinks we need to do nothing.
It is people who have a different view for Omicron, that I am interested in
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
I love the way my use of 'version' rather than 'translation' about the bible has led to a heated discussion.
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
I would say you used the right word, actually. The different translations of the Bible are called 'versions.' It's just that they differ in more than the words used, because of the different materials they use for that translation. Which is not as widely appreciated as perhaps it should be.
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Also differ in the audiences.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
I'm always wary of those books that claim to be 'literal translations.' For example, I believe you can literally translate German, as it is a very literal language, but nobody who is not actually unhinged would try to 'literally' translate Welsh into English as it is so idiomatic it would come out as meaningless drivel.
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
I am shocked, shocked that the German language is entirely literal.
The interplay between languages, cultures and philosophy is very interesting.
Superbly literal is German. I do rather like Fledermaus and handschuhe. German compound words are a real pleasure. There is a twitter site for them...
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
I don't agree with Topping's mountaineering comparison. It's crass.
However, there are aspects to this that might confuse. There are 'good' mountaineers/hikers/walkers/climbers: people who go up with the correct equipment, judging the conditions, and come unstuck due to a simple mistake or bad luck, such as weather.
Then there are 'mountaineers' (really, people who go up mountains) who wear the wrong kit, don't look at the weather, and carry no equipment to help them. I've seen loads like this, like a couple of people in loafers near the top of Scafell Pike, or jeans and no pack in cold mist on Kinder Scout.
I have much more sympathy with the former than the latter.
Many years ago while I was in Aber, I had gone out early one morning to photograph the scenery after a heavy overnight fall of snow.
Coming back down Constie (the big cliff at the north end with the funicular) in proper mountain boots with thick, grippy rubber soles, very gingerly, I met a couple of younger students walking up. The girl was in high heels. She had no grip at all.
I managed to keep calm and persuaded them to turn around, but my goodness, I was hiding being very angry.
You get that a lot in the Alps in the summer. Typically a couple who have gone up the cable car ‘just to look at the view’ and then decided to wander off along some mountain path.
One very snowy day a friend of mine met an ill-equipped and lost pair in the Lairig Ghru [trhough valley in the Cairngorm Hills]. He took them down to safety - at the cost of going well out of his way. But ...
I've helped in similar circumstances. The walkers from abroad had been advised by tourist information in Aviemore that the walk from Glenmore to Braemar was a good one.
Shame there were only 6 hours of daylight and it was going down to -8c. They were carrying their guitars! I got them from Corrour bothy to Derry lodge.
You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
I posted a lot earlier Leon.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
Yes, that is possible. On the other hand it looks like Omicron rises and falls steeply and quickly
Like many of us - you too, it seems - I veer between optimism and pessimism, but for the last week or so I have been very mildly optimistic (which is quite a long time for me)
I believe the virus is now, painfully, evolving into something less severe but still horribly infectious (and dangerous, if we get a new variant); perhaps more importantly, human society is adjusting. We are Learning to Live With It. Very few countries are now in total hard lockdown, unlike last winter
It is still fucking shit, and we have more shit to get through, but there is now a hint of a map showing the way out
I thought we had the route out when the vaccines were developed. Proved not to be so simples, sadly.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Who said Delta is nothing to worry about?
I don't recall you calling for a lockdown when Delta was around, we didn't need one was what you and several others said. I remember arguing with you about it
That's not the same thing, is it?
My point is you were wrong then and so I am interested in people that did call for a lockdown then who don't think there is anything to worry about now.
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
You keep making these massive sweeping generalisations.
I have generally preferred not to make generalisations.
And with that, good night.
But the French elite are so paranoid about Brexit, so allergic to it and fearful of it, they set a low bar for its success. Britain surviving intact and not starving to death will probably seem quite successful to them. given their direful predictions of total British implosion.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
Not in the UK it didn't.
Check the share of UK cases that were Delta and the date that Delta strain took over. We never introduced even a single restriction for Delta, they were introduced for Alpha (then known as the Kent or Cockney or UK variant).
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
Not in the UK it didn't.
Check the share of UK cases that were Delta and the date that Delta strain took over. We never introduced even a single restriction for Delta, they were introduced for Alpha (then known as the Kent or Cockney or UK variant).
My mistake. Given the context of @CorrectHorseBattery's post I thought he was referring to delta as the variant at the time of the lockdown in winter 2020.
You keep saying this, is there any chance of you elaborating? What scenario do you envisage for the UK, Europe, the world?
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
I posted a lot earlier Leon.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
My hospital has installed a fixed multi-user holding ambulance to help unload. There were 25 ambulances on the forecourt tonight as I walked out. It looks pretty grim in terms of capacity.
Thanks Foxy. But am sorry to hear this as this does not sound good at all.
Thoughts from the parish?
Quiet clinic this morning, but got busier as the day went on. Tomorrow looks bad as my registrar is off. Certain key staff off. Number of covid inpatients up 47% on last week. ICU about the same though. Will keep plodding on...
I don't agree with Topping's mountaineering comparison. It's crass.
However, there are aspects to this that might confuse. There are 'good' mountaineers/hikers/walkers/climbers: people who go up with the correct equipment, judging the conditions, and come unstuck due to a simple mistake or bad luck, such as weather.
Then there are 'mountaineers' (really, people who go up mountains) who wear the wrong kit, don't look at the weather, and carry no equipment to help them. I've seen loads like this, like a couple of people in loafers near the top of Scafell Pike, or jeans and no pack in cold mist on Kinder Scout.
I have much more sympathy with the former than the latter.
Many years ago while I was in Aber, I had gone out early one morning to photograph the scenery after a heavy overnight fall of snow.
Coming back down Constie (the big cliff at the north end with the funicular) in proper mountain boots with thick, grippy rubber soles, very gingerly, I met a couple of younger students walking up. The girl was in high heels. She had no grip at all.
I managed to keep calm and persuaded them to turn around, but my goodness, I was hiding being very angry.
You get that a lot in the Alps in the summer. Typically a couple who have gone up the cable car ‘just to look at the view’ and then decided to wander off along some mountain path.
One very snowy day a friend of mine met an ill-equipped and lost pair in the Lairig Ghru [trhough valley in the Cairngorm Hills]. He took them down to safety - at the cost of going well out of his way. But ...
I've helped in similar circumstances. The walkers from abroad had been advised by tourist information in Aviemore that the walk from Glenmore to Braemar was a good one.
Shame there were only 6 hours of daylight and it was going down to -8c. They were carrying their guitars! I got them from Corrour bothy to Derry lodge.
I haven’t done the Lairig Ghru for more than 15 years now. It a special route but only for those properly equipped, especially in winter.
The same people that said Delta was nothing to worry about, are those that are saying Omicron is nothing to worry about.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Delta was nothing to worry about.
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
The timeline is a bit off. Delta came along just prior to (or at the time of) the vaccine rollout.
Not in the UK it didn't.
Check the share of UK cases that were Delta and the date that Delta strain took over. We never introduced even a single restriction for Delta, they were introduced for Alpha (then known as the Kent or Cockney or UK variant).
My mistake. Given the context of @CorrectHorseBattery's post I thought he was referring to delta as the variant at the time of the lockdown in winter 2020.
Indeed the Winter 2020 Alpha variant was the bad one and it also predated vaccines so people were not saying it was nothing to worry about.
Indeed I at the time was entirely accepting of lockdown with the aim of getting the vaccine rolled out.
If he meant Alpha instead of Delta then I don't know to whom @CorrectHorseBattery is referring for saying that Alpha was no concern. Quite the opposite most of us were quite concerned that the vaccines get rolled out ASAP.
Any comparison of pre vaccine to post vaccine situations is completely absurd.
Comments
Good film about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_the_Wild_(film)
After which I am none the wiser! Even if I used the wrong word, I think everyone knew what I meant ..
https://www.theguardian.com/business/commentisfree/2021/dec/29/inflation-price-controls-time-we-use-it
Deary me...we have had the American advisers to US government saying inflation has been solved like Brown said Boom and Bust, now we can solve this problem of inflation with government price controls.
I had to visit the local pharmacy to collect a prescription. Notice: We don't have any LFTs and we don't know when we might have some.
Patients in English hospitals now over 10,000, but still tracking bottom range of Sage scenarios
So Sage were right
Edouard Mathieu
@redouad
·
3h
I wish people who criticize the UK COVID data spent some time looking into other countries' system, to realize how incredibly lucky they are.
No other large country in the world has a dashboard that's:
- So rich and well-designed
- Updated on a timely basis
- With a working API
There is a reason why traditionally clergy were supposed to know Greek and Hebrew - so that issue wouldn't affect them.
Must be a bubble issue
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bimisi-Tayanita/e/B08PCT2ZG4?ref=dbs_m_mng_rwt_byln
Realise I’m being a Debbie Downer tonight but just one more note…
NHS England have not reported hospital deaths since 24 December so the data is incomplete. They report the backlog tomorrow.
Expect a big number.
{and ideally use specimen date}
Genuine question. Just coming on here and saying "Oo-er" is not especially enlightening
And yes I know I do it all the time but at least I endeavour to entertain, mostly
Also, chill the heck out.
I think with the large number of cases, mutations are likely which could evade vaccines and/or be more dangerous as we saw with delta.
The people in hospital is going one way: up.
I think we're in trouble. I still hope I am wrong but I am no longer unworried as I was a few days ago.
"Visitors to the former home of Bloomsbury artist Vanessa Bell, Virginia Woolf's sister, had complained for years about the potholes. One warned in a review: 'You risk your car's suspension – and you need to wear a sports bra.'"
Yet using emergency funding for private property - it's like the potato famine walls in the Western Islands.
Crudely, say the difference between a children's bible, one designed for elementary speakers of English, and one aimed at being a literal translation not a paraphrase.
Paper submitted for peer review & preprint:
medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
📢TL;DR: Most of your T cell responses from vaccination or previous infection still recognise Omicron.
#Getvaccinated #GetthoseTcellsnow
https://twitter.com/virusmonologues/status/1476221647417921536
To the credit of the NIV, they make it clear from the start that they didn't try a 'literal' translation: rather, they went to enormous efforts to ensure what they had written as far as possible accurately reflected the meaning of the original.
URGENT UPDATE FOR BRITISH RESIDENTS IN EU: Following a French Government decision, on 28/12/2021, unless they hold French residency, British citizens are now considered 3rd country citizens and can no longer transit France by road to reach their country of residence in the EU.
https://twitter.com/LeShuttle/status/1476245791027179524
Between us we seem to have thoroughly confused poor old @JosiasJessop though, for which I hope he will forgive us.
Like many of us - you too, it seems - I veer between optimism and pessimism, but for the last week or so I have been very mildly optimistic (which is quite a long time for me)
I believe the virus is now, painfully, evolving into something less severe but still horribly infectious (and dangerous, if we get a new variant); perhaps more importantly, human society is adjusting. We are Learning to Live With It. Very few countries are now in total hard lockdown, unlike last winter
It is still fucking shit, and we have more shit to get through, but there is now a hint of a map showing the way out
They are used heavily by skiers. Except they were banned in the UK.
Fortunately the ban was overturned in 2012. If I was to do another long and remote walk, I'd get one.
https://www.go4awalk.com/the-bunkhouse/walking-news-and-discussions/walking-news-and-discussions.php?news=710223
https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2008/01/21/should-we-be-able-to-use-distress-beacons-in-britains-hills
The people visiting Vanessa Bell/Duncan Grant's house are the very definition of the Anti-Mail.
Hampstead metrosexuals, who fear for the underwiring on their bras, as they travel on the bumpy road.
(I've been, it is rather lovely if you like Bloomsbury -- as I did when I was 12).
Specifically why do I need multiple vaccines against a cold?
Cos if you're 6 months after a jab it's a heck of a lot more than a cold, as I know too well.
Predicted this would happen.
Also hearing employers wanting folk back at work pronto as it is "a mild cold".
Predicted that too.
The idea of hell and burning is chiefly from the Book of Revelation, and it was for a thousand ages rather than for ever.
Thoughts from the parish?
If you've had your jabs and your booster, it's almost certainly nothing more than a bad cold.
If you're clinically vulnerable, or very old, you can shield, you can go into voluntary lockdown for a couple of months. Or take your chances with it as you would any flu season (my elderly relatives, for example, would rather live out the time they have with family than spend it cowering in their rooms and never seeing anyone).
This variant is contagious enough that not even a strict lockdown could get R below 1. So it's going to go through the population anyway. All another lockdown will achieve is more economic, mental and physical harm on those of us who have done the right thing and gotten jabbed and boosted.
The anti-vax contingent may be in big trouble, however. If it does look like the NHS is going to be overwhelmed then, frankly, at this point f*** 'em.
Open up the nightingale hospitals and give the unvaxxed palliative care only. Prioritise NHS beds for those who have been vaccinated, especially the elderly and clinically vulnerable. Introduce an immediate covid tax on all the unvaccinated. And let it run its course.
It's TINA at this point, with a variant as contagious as omicron. You'll never get the R below 1 again, you won't get enough people complying with total lockdown and people still need to go to work, to deliver food, to man the power stations, to empty the bins. All you will be able to do is inflict a year more of misery and drudgery on the population, until they eventually riot, stop following the rules entirely), or turf you out of office.
The pandemic is over (or will be once the omicron wave sweeps the country), no matter how much you want to proclaim the sky is falling down.
Get your jabs, get your booster, make sure the NHS prioritises vaccinated people and if that means some unjabbed people die off, well that is their choice, just as smokers get lung cancer and alcoholics die of cirrhosis.
If you, my doom-mongering friend, want a real end of the world scenario, consider what happens if China goes into hard lockdown and industry gums up, the economy dies, and our shelves start to resemble a supermarket in Soviet times.
The collapse of global supply chains, hyperinflation, and the resultant political and economic turmoil that comes with it, is a far greater danger than the NHS becoming overwhelmed, or whatever it is the next strain you're worried about.
The danger is no longer a virus, the danger is what happens in a systemic collapse of the global economy and the likely political instability that goes with it. Because that is where locking down indefinitely, time after time, eventually gets you.
The answer is to accept that it is endemic, take your vaccine, get your boosters, get on with life. That is what most of us are doing.
It was as boring as f***. I didn't connect with it at all, but I was at uni, not sleeping well, and I'd read everything else.
The Quran frightened me, which is why I only read half of it.
Edit: or I could just say I was reading the Jessop translation of the bible, which clearly states 'Hades' and 'forever' ...
The interplay between languages, cultures and philosophy is very interesting.
So is anyone who said Delta was nothing to worry about, going to stick their head up and say this is different
Basically, we are doomed to a Cold War with France for years if not decades. Why? Because the super-europhile French view Brexit as an Exocet aimed directly at the greatest project of post-war France - European Unification (under French leadership, begrudgingly shared with Berlin). The EU is all that France really cares about, foreign-policy-wise, as they see it as the only way to assert French power globally, now France is relatively so small, compared to the USA, China, and other rising powers like India
A "successful" Brexit is a mortal and perpetual peril to this ambition. If it is ever seen to happen it will encourage other more reluctant members of the EU tribe (Poland, Hungary, maybe Sweden and Denmark, even Greece and Italy) to copy the UK, thus members will topple away like dominoes and the EU will crumble.
Therefore Brexit cannot succeed, not only that it must be punished continuously, and Britain must be singled out for worse treatment than any other 3rd country, in perpetuity (because the French have no other idea how to handle Brexit, such it their hatred and fear of it)
Hence shit like this. Britain is deliberately being targetted by the Frogs, and this is going to go on for a long, long time, and we can expect no better from any other president - Macron is just more honest in his petulant anger than some
The UK needs to adjust to France as an overtly hostile power, for the long term. Once we accept this we can of course react, accordingly
'Leaves blowing in the wind' is another one I remember.
But I was talking about peculiar sentence structures rather than metaphors. For example, in Welsh 'I have a car' would literally translate as 'Dw'i'n gael car.' But that is meaningless. The correct translation is 'mae car 'da fi,' which in English would literally translate to 'there is a car with me.' Which means something altogether different.
Similarly 'sorry' is technically 'mae fflin galon 'da fi' or 'mae'n ddrwg calon da fi' which roughly translates to 'there is an unbearable pain with my heart.'* Now if you translated that into English, people might realise you were saying you felt sorry, or they might reach for a defibrillator and ring an ambulance.
*I should point out because that is one hell of a mouthful, most Welsh people just say 'sori.'
What I am hearing now is the same people that initially said "nothing to worry about" then said "lockdown isn't needed" then said "lockdown 2.0 isn't needed". It's the same people
translavers: translations and versions of roughly the same thing.
Or perhaps not, as I've just realised some may think it means people who keep trans people in bondage ...
By the time Delta came about we'd already rolled out the vaccines and we came out of lockdown despite all the hysterical bullshit about the Johnson Variant.
Post vaccines Covid isn't something to worry about. Unvaccinated morons and social hypochondria are much bigger concerns.
And with that, good night.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7702913.stm
Before we had vaccines, I was very much of the opinion to have tougher rather than lack restrictions, now I am much more on the other side. However, that isn't binary, in the way you continue to keep phrasing these statements.
We didn't have one for Delta. We had one for Alpha.
I'm not seeing anyone. Everyone who was cautious before is cautious now and everyone who was "herd immunity happened, lockdowns don't work" still thinks we need to do nothing.
It is people who have a different view for Omicron, that I am interested in
https://twitter.com/longgermanwords?t=SAkiSlJPZo1JqUaTXp_SUw&s=09
Shame there were only 6 hours of daylight and it was going down to -8c. They were carrying their guitars! I got them from Corrour bothy to Derry lodge.
Then the next time the EU does something widely unpopular, eurosceptics across the continent will start to look longingly at independent London.
This is the great French fear. By this guy's account it does stalk their nightmares.
Check the share of UK cases that were Delta and the date that Delta strain took over. We never introduced even a single restriction for Delta, they were introduced for Alpha (then known as the Kent or Cockney or UK variant).
My son has Covid.
He's 11 and vaxxed (albeit with a pediatric dose). No-one else in the family has tested positive, and we're all fully vaxxed.
His symptoms are cold like with a sore throat.
I'm resigned to getting the bu**er. But I want it as late as possible, and preferably in the New Year, so I can complete my year of running...
Indeed I at the time was entirely accepting of lockdown with the aim of getting the vaccine rolled out.
If he meant Alpha instead of Delta then I don't know to whom @CorrectHorseBattery is referring for saying that Alpha was no concern. Quite the opposite most of us were quite concerned that the vaccines get rolled out ASAP.
Any comparison of pre vaccine to post vaccine situations is completely absurd.