Much of the Steele Dossier has been proven true, including multiple secret contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign, Trump seeking a major real estate deal in Russia during the election, Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and payments to Michael Flynn from Moscow.
Dear Oh Lord. Was that a research fail on your part or were you trying to deliberately mislead people who would just accept your words without checking the link.
First of all, it’s CNN, which is not exactly the most unbiased of sources (and if you think CNN is neutral, well…). Second, it’s dated January 2019 - guess what, a lot has happened since then…
Have you heard of the Dunham Special Counsel investigation and what’s been happening. Here’s some links - they are not CNN and they are not Fox.
The fact you couldn't negate any of my specific comments and that you are going into "CNN not to be trusted, they are just like Fox" then citing an opinion piece just shows your ridiculous bias.
And again, none of this comes close to an armed, violent occupation of Congress during an election count, complete with nooses and death threats. You are just engaging in muddying the waters and whataboutism to take attention away from proto-fascists striking at the very roots of Western freedom.
I didn’t choose to negate it because we are in the middle of a Special Investigation that has uncovered far more facts and, in some cases, contradicts your CNN report. In fact, the facts are completely making the CNN report look like a particularly bad example of how badly some things age.
As for the opinion piece, Jonathan Turley happens to be one of the best legal commentators out there, certainly not a Trumpist. He’s represented - and got off - those accused of being Islamic terrorists. The idea he is some Trumpist wannabe is a fantasy on your part.
Still, as I said to Kinabalu, no one has been charged of sedition and insurrection so you seem to be making some mental leaps…
What happened was you claimed the Clinton campaign did something equivalent to the Trump-led marching on the Capitol. Your example of this was Clinton aides claiming to authorities that the Trump campaign had Russian links and you said this was disproved. In fact multiple links between the Trump campaign and Moscow have been demonstrated, including business negotiations, frequent contacts hidden from US authorities and, in at least one case, financial payments. Now you can't negate any of that you are just link spamming and yammering on about CNN not being a newsworthy source.
What are you talking about? It has been disproved. One of the accused has admitted he fabricated the evidence and Steele has said that Clinton knew what he was doing.
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
Maybe if you've been liking lots of anti-mask stuff twitter have put 2+2 together and made..well, whatever.
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
The separation of federal and state means double jeopardy doesn't apply if prosecuted in both.
If the murder trials were done in a state court then potentially a state Governor could commute their sentences in the future to release them.
If they're convicted in a federal court then they'd need a pardon from both the Governor and the President to be released.
An interesting legal point.
I was discussing the American legal system with my Year 8s the other day. Their considered opinion was that it's a complete mess.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
How have I (so far, knowingly) managed to dodge omicron? I have been to double figures of packed, unmasked pubs over Christmas, hosted 20 people at my own house, and attended a belting New Years house party. I must be ludicrously lucky. I don’t expect my luck to last!!
Or, you had it but it was so mild you didn't even have a sniffle
My girlfriend has tested negative to a ton of LFTs and PCR despite being in close contact with me, confirmed positive, for over a week.
That scenario is not even that rare. It’s truly bizarre, isn’t it?
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
My (cynical) guess would be to keep it in the headlines and / or motivate Black voters in particular ahead of the Midterms. It’s a slam dunk - they have been convicted as they should have been so no major risk there and you can bring up the narrative of Hate crimes / Race again.
Funnily enough, I don’t think they’re bringing federal hate charges who drive his SUV into the crowd of old people and children even though he made racist comments on his website including threats of violence.
Go figure.
Top tip to joggers: best not to interrupt your training to stroll around someone else's construction site. This applies esp if you are a Jogger of Color and the construction site is in redneckville Ga.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
How have I (so far, knowingly) managed to dodge omicron? I have been to double figures of packed, unmasked pubs over Christmas, hosted 20 people at my own house, and attended a belting New Years house party. I must be ludicrously lucky. I don’t expect my luck to last!!
Have you been testing daily? possible you have had it asymptomatically. or perhaps you have had it at some point in the last 20 months?
No! I have only done three tests in my whole life! 😂
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
How have I (so far, knowingly) managed to dodge omicron? I have been to double figures of packed, unmasked pubs over Christmas, hosted 20 people at my own house, and attended a belting New Years house party. I must be ludicrously lucky. I don’t expect my luck to last!!
Have you been testing daily? possible you have had it asymptomatically. or perhaps you have had it at some point in the last 20 months?
No! I have only done three tests in my whole life! 😂
The driving test was presumably one. An eye test or two perhaps?
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
How have I (so far, knowingly) managed to dodge omicron? I have been to double figures of packed, unmasked pubs over Christmas, hosted 20 people at my own house, and attended a belting New Years house party. I must be ludicrously lucky. I don’t expect my luck to last!!
We've avoided Covid so far, without being particularly careful (masks aside). I'm not expecting this status to last long ...
I do wonder if there's some genetic aspect to getting and avoiding the worst of Covid. It's perfectly possible for you (or us) to have had it without realising. Something that may not always be picked up even by the antibody survey.
There must be. Susceptibility to Covid has the appearance of a lottery and has done from the beginning. We all know that a certain number of nonagenarians have had asymptomatic infections and a certain number of twentysomethings have died of it. The blind luck of genetics will be playing its part.
I read something on this today in the times. For instance why don’t some people in a house get ill or even seem to not catch Covid when it’s present? Bit like the early days of the cruise liners. Speculation may be linked to natural killer T-cells, possibly cross reactive from previous corona infections. Like everything else about the immune system, it’s complicated. Wife and I have so far dodged it. Both had exposures to Covid positive people (me in March 2020 sharing coffee with a colleague who definitely had the original version and the wife spent a day in the same office as a colleague in 2021 who had alpha).
Much of the Steele Dossier has been proven true, including multiple secret contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign, Trump seeking a major real estate deal in Russia during the election, Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and payments to Michael Flynn from Moscow.
Dear Oh Lord. Was that a research fail on your part or were you trying to deliberately mislead people who would just accept your words without checking the link.
First of all, it’s CNN, which is not exactly the most unbiased of sources (and if you think CNN is neutral, well…). Second, it’s dated January 2019 - guess what, a lot has happened since then…
Have you heard of the Dunham Special Counsel investigation and what’s been happening. Here’s some links - they are not CNN and they are not Fox.
The fact you couldn't negate any of my specific comments and that you are going into "CNN not to be trusted, they are just like Fox" then citing an opinion piece just shows your ridiculous bias.
And again, none of this comes close to an armed, violent occupation of Congress during an election count, complete with nooses and death threats. You are just engaging in muddying the waters and whataboutism to take attention away from proto-fascists striking at the very roots of Western freedom.
I didn’t choose to negate it because we are in the middle of a Special Investigation that has uncovered far more facts and, in some cases, contradicts your CNN report. In fact, the facts are completely making the CNN report look like a particularly bad example of how badly some things age.
As for the opinion piece, Jonathan Turley happens to be one of the best legal commentators out there, certainly not a Trumpist. He’s represented - and got off - those accused of being Islamic terrorists. The idea he is some Trumpist wannabe is a fantasy on your part.
Still, as I said to Kinabalu, no one has been charged of sedition and insurrection so you seem to be making some mental leaps…
What happened was you claimed the Clinton campaign did something equivalent to the Trump-led marching on the Capitol. Your example of this was Clinton aides claiming to authorities that the Trump campaign had Russian links and you said this was disproved. In fact multiple links between the Trump campaign and Moscow have been demonstrated, including business negotiations, frequent contacts hidden from US authorities and, in at least one case, financial payments. Now you can't negate any of that you are just link spamming and yammering on about CNN not being a newsworthy source.
What are you talking about? It has been disproved. One of the accused has admitted he fabricated the evidence and Steele has said that Clinton knew what he was doing.
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
My (cynical) guess would be to keep it in the headlines and / or motivate Black voters in particular ahead of the Midterms. It’s a slam dunk - they have been convicted as they should have been so no major risk there and you can bring up the narrative of Hate crimes / Race again.
Funnily enough, I don’t think they’re bringing federal hate charges who drive his SUV into the crowd of old people and children even though he made racist comments on his website including threats of violence.
Go figure.
Top tip to joggers: best not to interrupt your training to stroll around someone else's construction site. This applies esp if you are a Jogger of Color and the construction site is in redneckville Ga.
'Colour', and they can jog.
Color in Georgia.
I guess I wasn't making the point you thought I was.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
How have I (so far, knowingly) managed to dodge omicron? I have been to double figures of packed, unmasked pubs over Christmas, hosted 20 people at my own house, and attended a belting New Years house party. I must be ludicrously lucky. I don’t expect my luck to last!!
We've avoided Covid so far, without being particularly careful (masks aside). I'm not expecting this status to last long ...
I do wonder if there's some genetic aspect to getting and avoiding the worst of Covid. It's perfectly possible for you (or us) to have had it without realising. Something that may not always be picked up even by the antibody survey.
"We all know people like Sarah: the seemingly untouchable Covid “never-getters” who remain standing while everyone around them falls ill."
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
My (cynical) guess would be to keep it in the headlines and / or motivate Black voters in particular ahead of the Midterms. It’s a slam dunk - they have been convicted as they should have been so no major risk there and you can bring up the narrative of Hate crimes / Race again.
Funnily enough, I don’t think they’re bringing federal hate charges who drive his SUV into the crowd of old people and children even though he made racist comments on his website including threats of violence.
Go figure.
Top tip to joggers: best not to interrupt your training to stroll around someone else's construction site. This applies esp if you are a Jogger of Color and the construction site is in redneckville Ga.
So I assume the story is more complex than that presented on breakfast news this morning?
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
My (cynical) guess would be to keep it in the headlines and / or motivate Black voters in particular ahead of the Midterms. It’s a slam dunk - they have been convicted as they should have been so no major risk there and you can bring up the narrative of Hate crimes / Race again.
Funnily enough, I don’t think they’re bringing federal hate charges who drive his SUV into the crowd of old people and children even though he made racist comments on his website including threats of violence.
Go figure.
Top tip to joggers: best not to interrupt your training to stroll around someone else's construction site. This applies esp if you are a Jogger of Color and the construction site is in redneckville Ga.
'Colour', and they can jog.
Color in Georgia.
I guess I wasn't making the point you thought I was.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Could be any of a number of reasons, or a combination. Here’s one. Virus hijack your bodies tools etc to replicate. A new variant may be able to do this faster, or slower. Or maybe in the upper respiratory tract rather than the lungs. Transmission needs virus, and for it to get out and infect someone else. Both the above examples could be a way to bring the time down.
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Sorry; here we’re getting way beyond my expertise. I can do the maths side, but my knowledge of virology is genuinely at the “has read a few papers since covid started”.
My very vague understanding is that it could be based on where it reproduces (ie higher in the respiratory system MIGHT contribute to that) but that’s just a vague impression I got and is very probably, if true, just a small part of it.
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
That's what I was trying to explain earlier, but I think Andy_cooke did a better job.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Could be any of a number of reasons, or a combination. Here’s one. Virus hijack your bodies tools etc to replicate. A new variant may be able to do this faster, or slower. Or maybe in the upper respiratory tract rather than the lungs. Transmission needs virus, and for it to get out and infect someone else. Both the above examples could be a way to bring the time down.
This may be a ridiculous suggestion, but we've read that Omicron generally stays in the upper respiratory tract, and in your mouth and nose, and doesn't head down for the lungs (thank God).
If its remains nearer the mouth and nose maybe you are simply more likely to spread it quicker, coughing and sneezing, or just breathing, and thereby shedding a greater viral load at the same time?
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
"At this point, more than 725 people have been arrested in connection with the Capitol riot. At least 165 have pleaded guilty " "Approximately 70 have been sentenced — around 30 received prison time and the others got probation." "A necessary consequence of the prosecutorial approach of charging less serious offenses first is that courts impose shorter sentences before they impose longer ones,"
New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.
Time to talk about removing restrictions.
They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
Possibly - I was surprised to see it reported.
But its interesting that the number on ventilators has been falling - which suggests that those being hospitalised with Omicron are less seriously ill and so are likely to be leaving hospital sooner.
There's also the possibility that the number of anti-vaxxers not previously infected has now reached such minimal levels that they're having less of an effect on hospital numbers.
I'm really not trying to be clever, but is it possible that the number on ventilators is falling at least partly because quite a lot are dying and have no further need for a ventilator? From what I can see there are currently around 850 on ventilators. 1,271 deaths have been reported over the last 7 days (yes, I know that some of these deaths happened more than 7 days ago).
The number on ventilation has been totally flat throughout, you'd think they'd at least need a period on ventilation before dying.
This is an interesting aspect. If the death rate of measuring covid is "died within 28 days of a positive test" then anyone who might have died of another cause, e.g. cancer but also coincidentally had covid at the same time this would be added to the covid tally would it not (please correct me if I am wrong)?
Surely the best way would be saying that someone died due to medical complications related primarily to Covid. This would require a little more interpretation but would give a greater level of confidence in the data
28 days was used, not because of any medical properties - other than the numbers dying with COVID and not of it, kind of balance with those who took so long to die that they were outside the 28 days.
Case of death then ends up as a bit of rabbit hole - COVID will be mentioned on death certificates, but is it the primary cause, a contributory cause, or a may have been... or what. People are arguing endlessly over individual cases.
There is no exact answer. All the statistics are approximate when you dig into them. 28 days is a pretty useful approximation.
Indeed, but if we get to a situation where Omicron infects huge numbers of people there are going to be a large number of people who will become part of the statistic. If I had had a tachycardia unrelated to covid when I had the pox, and had been submitted to hospital and then subsequently went to sing with the choir invisible then I would be one of the statistics even though my demise had nothing to do with the plague!
Deaths where covid is mentioned on the death certificate exceed deaths within 28 days of diagnosis. There are more deaths involving Covid that occur after 28 days than "coincidental" Covid deaths, and I'm afraid it boils my piss that this is never ever ever mentioned by anyone ever.
I recall the death certificates were unreliable though because there was a period when covid was being cured as cause of death regardless of whether it was actually implicated or not
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Could be any of a number of reasons, or a combination. Here’s one. Virus hijack your bodies tools etc to replicate. A new variant may be able to do this faster, or slower. Or maybe in the upper respiratory tract rather than the lungs. Transmission needs virus, and for it to get out and infect someone else. Both the above examples could be a way to bring the time down.
This may be a ridiculous suggestion, but we've read that Omicron generally stays in the upper respiratory tract, and in your mouth and nose, and doesn't head down for the lungs (thank God).
If its remains nearer the mouth and nose maybe you are simply more likely to spread it quicker, coughing and sneezing, or just breathing, and thereby shedding a greater viral load at the same time?
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Silly and wrong thing for Kinabalu to have said, because rules of evidence are limited in scope. You can't sentence the 4 to a punishment for CD, because imposing punishments is part of the same game as finding them guilty, and you have to be careful about defamation issues because you risk placing yourself inside a related game where the same rules apply. But apart from that you can think what you like. Parliament could introduce an irrebuttable presumption in English law that the value of pi is exactly 3, and that is what it would be, within the game. Doesn't stop outsiders from believing different.
And needless to say it wasn't my point at all. I don't say silly and wrong things. Well I do, been known to, but not on this occasion. My point on Colston was different. It was that if a person says (i) the act *was* criminal and (ii) they accept the verdict, then the (ii) is not *really* the case. But of course people can think and say what they like - and that includes me making this point here.
As for the US Capitol stuff, I have no idea what exact charges the people involved are facing, or should be facing, me being not the go-to on such matters, but I'm happy with the following statement, which is what this is really all about -
Donald Trump and the goons in his circle made a concerted attempt over a prolonged period to overturn by chicanery, intimidation & violence the results of a free & fair US presidential election.
New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.
Time to talk about removing restrictions.
They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
Possibly - I was surprised to see it reported.
But its interesting that the number on ventilators has been falling - which suggests that those being hospitalised with Omicron are less seriously ill and so are likely to be leaving hospital sooner.
There's also the possibility that the number of anti-vaxxers not previously infected has now reached such minimal levels that they're having less of an effect on hospital numbers.
I'm really not trying to be clever, but is it possible that the number on ventilators is falling at least partly because quite a lot are dying and have no further need for a ventilator? From what I can see there are currently around 850 on ventilators. 1,271 deaths have been reported over the last 7 days (yes, I know that some of these deaths happened more than 7 days ago).
The number on ventilation has been totally flat throughout, you'd think they'd at least need a period on ventilation before dying.
This is an interesting aspect. If the death rate of measuring covid is "died within 28 days of a positive test" then anyone who might have died of another cause, e.g. cancer but also coincidentally had covid at the same time this would be added to the covid tally would it not (please correct me if I am wrong)?
Surely the best way would be saying that someone died due to medical complications related primarily to Covid. This would require a little more interpretation but would give a greater level of confidence in the data
28 days was used, not because of any medical properties - other than the numbers dying with COVID and not of it, kind of balance with those who took so long to die that they were outside the 28 days.
Case of death then ends up as a bit of rabbit hole - COVID will be mentioned on death certificates, but is it the primary cause, a contributory cause, or a may have been... or what. People are arguing endlessly over individual cases.
There is no exact answer. All the statistics are approximate when you dig into them. 28 days is a pretty useful approximation.
Indeed, but if we get to a situation where Omicron infects huge numbers of people there are going to be a large number of people who will become part of the statistic. If I had had a tachycardia unrelated to covid when I had the pox, and had been submitted to hospital and then subsequently went to sing with the choir invisible then I would be one of the statistics even though my demise had nothing to do with the plague!
Deaths where covid is mentioned on the death certificate exceed deaths within 28 days of diagnosis. There are more deaths involving Covid that occur after 28 days than "coincidental" Covid deaths, and I'm afraid it boils my piss that this is never ever ever mentioned by anyone ever.
I recall the death certificates were unreliable though because there was a period when covid was being cured as cause of death regardless of whether it was actually implicated or not
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
Maybe if you've been liking lots of anti-mask stuff twitter have put 2+2 together and made..well, whatever.
I've not. As I said I almost never use Twitter. I joined in 2009 and have liked a grand total of 10 Tweets in thirteen years. None of which were anti mask or vaxx.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Ah! Very clear and easy-to-understand
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Could be any of a number of reasons, or a combination. Here’s one. Virus hijack your bodies tools etc to replicate. A new variant may be able to do this faster, or slower. Or maybe in the upper respiratory tract rather than the lungs. Transmission needs virus, and for it to get out and infect someone else. Both the above examples could be a way to bring the time down.
This may be a ridiculous suggestion, but we've read that Omicron generally stays in the upper respiratory tract, and in your mouth and nose, and doesn't head down for the lungs (thank God).
If its remains nearer the mouth and nose maybe you are simply more likely to spread it quicker, coughing and sneezing, or just breathing, and thereby shedding a greater viral load at the same time?
Possibly, but I think the bigger issue is how quickly the virus can build up mor3 virus. It may be intrinsically faster for omicron, and maybe because of where it is doing so.
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
Maybe if you've been liking lots of anti-mask stuff twitter have put 2+2 together and made..well, whatever.
I've not. As I said I almost never use Twitter. I joined in 2009 and have liked a grand total of 10 Tweets in thirteen years. None of which were anti mask or vaxx.
Perhaps you accidentally 'liked' a post on those lines, and it's dominating your recent activity?
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
I thought you had to do both? That’s what I have just done anyway!
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
Well, whether they think it more accurate or not give the length of nasal only swabs it would be very stupid advice to give.
Eric Berger @SciGuySpace · 3h The James Webb Space Telescope is now fully deployed. This is a remarkable engineering achievement that 99 percent of the world will not appreciate. But those of us who know, know. And we are in awe.
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
I thought you had to do both? That’s what I have just done anyway!
With older style tests, yes. Not with the new ones.
If there is an opinium poll, I predict a 3% Labour lead.
Re cross-over.
Johnson has had a good run in the news cycles since Christmas. The media narrative has been Johnson got Covid right whilst the rest of the UK and the world got it horribly wrong.
New infections seem to be on a definite downward path with the peak being 29/12.
Time to talk about removing restrictions.
They do not normally report the total in hospital for the day of the report, i.e. the 8th of Jan on the 8th of Jan, i suspect that this is an 'admin blip' at that is a provisional number that will be revised up.
Possibly - I was surprised to see it reported.
But its interesting that the number on ventilators has been falling - which suggests that those being hospitalised with Omicron are less seriously ill and so are likely to be leaving hospital sooner.
There's also the possibility that the number of anti-vaxxers not previously infected has now reached such minimal levels that they're having less of an effect on hospital numbers.
I'm really not trying to be clever, but is it possible that the number on ventilators is falling at least partly because quite a lot are dying and have no further need for a ventilator? From what I can see there are currently around 850 on ventilators. 1,271 deaths have been reported over the last 7 days (yes, I know that some of these deaths happened more than 7 days ago).
The number on ventilation has been totally flat throughout, you'd think they'd at least need a period on ventilation before dying.
This is an interesting aspect. If the death rate of measuring covid is "died within 28 days of a positive test" then anyone who might have died of another cause, e.g. cancer but also coincidentally had covid at the same time this would be added to the covid tally would it not (please correct me if I am wrong)?
Surely the best way would be saying that someone died due to medical complications related primarily to Covid. This would require a little more interpretation but would give a greater level of confidence in the data
28 days was used, not because of any medical properties - other than the numbers dying with COVID and not of it, kind of balance with those who took so long to die that they were outside the 28 days.
Case of death then ends up as a bit of rabbit hole - COVID will be mentioned on death certificates, but is it the primary cause, a contributory cause, or a may have been... or what. People are arguing endlessly over individual cases.
There is no exact answer. All the statistics are approximate when you dig into them. 28 days is a pretty useful approximation.
Indeed, but if we get to a situation where Omicron infects huge numbers of people there are going to be a large number of people who will become part of the statistic. If I had had a tachycardia unrelated to covid when I had the pox, and had been submitted to hospital and then subsequently went to sing with the choir invisible then I would be one of the statistics even though my demise had nothing to do with the plague!
Yes, in the last 28 days something like 20% of Londoners have tested positive for COVID.
The concern therefore is that those in in favour of greater restrictions will point to the "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" even though it is an unreliable stat.
There looked to have been a bit of a decoupling of the ONS series and the dashboard stats for week before Xmas. We'll have to rely on the backwards looking data for a while IMO, same as the with/for hospitalisation report we get on Fridays.
Interesting. IIRC if someone tragically dies when they have HIV/AIDS it is described as a result of complications brought on by HIV/AIDS. One would have thought that a causal link diagnosis could be applied.
Aids doesn’t kill people - it nukes the immune system and makes patients vulnerable to opportunistic infections
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
He does need to pray for his mum's continued good health. It seems fairly clear she is ok to stump up the odd £5m on a "boys will be boys" basis whereas Chas n baldy would like to see him twisting in the wind
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Another thought, there should be a new "R number" which combines these two factors? Perhaps there is?
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
As far as I understand it's actually not that plausible to be more deadly, more transmissible and vax evasive.
There was a quote a year ago from the inventor of the Oxford vaccine along the lines that the way the vaccines worked (targeting the spike protein) meant that anything that evolved to be evade the vaccine shouldn't be as deadly because it wouldn't spike as well.
So it has turned out. Omicron is more evasive but doesn't spike as well hence being dominant in throats rather than lungs and organs. Which makes it less deadly.
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
Well, whether they think it more accurate or not give the length of nasal only swabs it would be very stupid advice to give.
So they're going to do it, aren't they?
Probably.
How long will it take for someone to choke to death on a swallowed swab, I wonder?
Regardless, we're back to the masks in schools policy again. Only this time I wouldn't be surprised if, instead of having some low quality data that had been analysed and offered no actual evidence, they were simply flying on a hunch.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Another thought, there should be a new "R number" which combines these two factors? Perhaps there is?
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
Thing is there isnt really an R0 for a virus, as it’s also conditional on human behaviour and geography. So the R0 for central London tube using population is different from the R0 of the Yorkshire dales farming stock. Basically, like so much of this, it’s complicated...
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
I thought you had to do both? That’s what I have just done anyway!
RTM.
The kits with short swabs have short swabs for a reason.
Eric Berger @SciGuySpace · 3h The James Webb Space Telescope is now fully deployed. This is a remarkable engineering achievement that 99 percent of the world will not appreciate. But those of us who know, know. And we are in awe.
You can follow it on an App. 0.4 km per second cruising speed.
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
"At this point, more than 725 people have been arrested in connection with the Capitol riot. At least 165 have pleaded guilty " "Approximately 70 have been sentenced — around 30 received prison time and the others got probation." "A necessary consequence of the prosecutorial approach of charging less serious offenses first is that courts impose shorter sentences before they impose longer ones,"
As they should as they committed crimes. No issue there - they broke the law.
The question is has enough evidence being found to charge them with sedition and insurrection. You can believe that they planned insurrection (I don't - I think they were rioters who were egged on by Trump and then got intoxicated on the lust of thinking they could overturn things) but there has been no conviction or charge.
Carnyx's point is right - there still might be. But it is a year now and the suspects were rounded up pretty quickly. And, given the DOJ would love to charge them with sedition / insurrection, there is a fair chance they know the charges wouldn't stick - which, of course, would then mean that the insurrection accusation would have failed in court.
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
I imagine they’ve tracked that you are anti-restrictions and have correlated that to being anti-vaxx as well
Eric Berger @SciGuySpace · 3h The James Webb Space Telescope is now fully deployed. This is a remarkable engineering achievement that 99 percent of the world will not appreciate. But those of us who know, know. And we are in awe.
You can follow it on an App. 0.4 km per second cruising speed.
If there is an opinium poll, I predict a 3% Labour lead.
Re cross-over.
Johnson has had a good run in the news cycles since Christmas. The media narrative has been Johnson got Covid right whilst the rest of the UK and the world got it horribly wrong.
Annoying. As it was the Cabinet who got it right, not Johnson. Reports vary between he was undecided, so let cabinet decide, and he was persuaded by Whitty and co to do circuit breaker or xmas lockdown and couldn't get it through cabinet.
Either way could be one of the most important all-cabinet decisions in years.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Another thought, there should be a new "R number" which combines these two factors? Perhaps there is?
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
Thing is there isnt really an R0 for a virus, as it’s also conditional on human behaviour and geography. So the R0 for central London tube using population is different from the R0 of the Yorkshire dales farming stock. Basically, like so much of this, it’s complicated...
Well, yes, but I still like to make an effort to understand, in an amateur way. Feel it's my duty. Also I like science, and I like learning it
Tho the deeper you dig on much of this, the more you realise how much the experts themselves disagree on fundamental aspects. eg there is still serious dispute as to whether viruses are "alive" or not
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Another thought, there should be a new "R number" which combines these two factors? Perhaps there is?
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
Thing is there isnt really an R0 for a virus, as it’s also conditional on human behaviour and geography. So the R0 for central London tube using population is different from the R0 of the Yorkshire dales farming stock. Basically, like so much of this, it’s complicated...
Well, yes, but I still like to make an effort to understand, in an amateur way. Feel it's my duty. Also I like science, and I like learning it
Tho the deeper you dig on much of this, the more you realise how much the experts themselves disagree on fundamental aspects. eg there is still serious dispute as to whether viruses are "alive" or not
This is the joy of science, and why I still love it, even though the pay is shit. I still get a buzz when I get results. At the moment I am working on why my modified capsaicin molecules (the heat from chillies) is better at killer breast cancer cells than capsaicin itself. Still don’t know why. Might get some more ideas in the next few months. I heartily applaud your interest, and keep asking questions, like a demented three year old. There are no bad questions.
If there is an opinium poll, I predict a 3% Labour lead.
Re cross-over.
Johnson has had a good run in the news cycles since Christmas. The media narrative has been Johnson got Covid right whilst the rest of the UK and the world got it horribly wrong.
Annoying. As it was the Cabinet who got it right, not Johnson. Reports vary between he was undecided, so let cabinet decide, and he was persuaded by Whitty and co to do circuit breaker or xmas lockdown and couldn't get it through cabinet.
Either way could be one of the most important all-cabinet decisions in years.
I was comparing it with the Poll Tax yesterday in a politics lesson - one where the PM makes policy, and one where the cabinet does.
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
As far as I understand it's actually not that plausible to be more deadly, more transmissible and vax evasive.
There was a quote a year ago from the inventor of the Oxford vaccine along the lines that the way the vaccines worked (targeting the spike protein) meant that anything that evolved to be evade the vaccine shouldn't be as deadly because it wouldn't spike as well.
So it has turned out. Omicron is more evasive but doesn't spike as well hence being dominant in throats rather than lungs and organs. Which makes it less deadly.
Inneressing thing about myxy is how it modifies behaviour. When I were a lad in Lancashire rabbits typically lived in sodding great burrows, 100s if not 1000s strong. Couple of waves of myxy and the warrens are now deserted (and not replaced by fresh ones).
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
What does PB think? I'd go for lat flows on onset of symptoms, reasonable precautions (no pub, WFH) if possible. All voluntary. Plus booster vax every autumn.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
Has anyone recently tried to calculate the "pure" and "effective" R numbers for Omicron?
It must be off the dial. One of the most infectious diseases we have ever encountered. Imagine if Omicron had evolved to be more lethal as WELL as more transmissible and vax-evasive. I understand this is far from impossible
We would be staring, this winter, at a true apocalypse. Civilisational collapse
The basic reproduction rate is high but not the highest known, but that combined with the short serial interval (the time between cases in a chain of transmission) may make it effectively the fastest growing virus seen in modern history. It's the combination of how many new cases arise at each step and how soon a new step begins that makes it so problematic. In the Omicron variant we have a virus that is as transmissible as something like mumps or rubella that reproduces as fast as influenza.
For this layman, could you elaborate what you mean by "short serial interval"- what does that mean and how does it work in the real world?
I would be genuinely grateful. It sounds important!
You know how R refers to how many people each infectee goes on to infect?
Like an R of 3 means Patient Zero infects three, who go on to infect three each (so a total of 9 at second remove) and then 27, and so on, in a nasty live demonstration of exponential growth.
The serial interval is how long each step takes. If something has an R of 5 but a serial interval of a year, then by the time it infects over a thousand people at a time, it’s been more than four years since the outbreak starts, so not really that scary to get a hold of. It’d take 8-9 years to get a million infectees.
If it has an R of just 2 but a serial interval of 1 day, it gets past a thousand in 10 days flat and a million in 20 days, so rather more frightening, despite the considerably lower R.
Another thought, there should be a new "R number" which combines these two factors? Perhaps there is?
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
Thing is there isnt really an R0 for a virus, as it’s also conditional on human behaviour and geography. So the R0 for central London tube using population is different from the R0 of the Yorkshire dales farming stock. Basically, like so much of this, it’s complicated...
Well, yes, but I still like to make an effort to understand, in an amateur way. Feel it's my duty. Also I like science, and I like learning it
Tho the deeper you dig on much of this, the more you realise how much the experts themselves disagree on fundamental aspects. eg there is still serious dispute as to whether viruses are "alive" or not
This is the joy of science, and why I still love it, even though the pay is shit. I still get a buzz when I get results. At the moment I am working on why my modified capsaicin molecules (the heat from chillies) is better at killer breast cancer cells than capsaicin itself. Still don’t know why. Might get some more ideas in the next few months. I heartily applaud your interest, and keep asking questions, like a demented three year old. There are no bad questions.
I love science, always have. It's the way the world is made, and how, and sometimes even why, how can that be boring?
I confess I never expected to find virology and epidemiology so absorbing, but turns out they are - at least in the whirlwind of a global pandemic
My favourites are probably evolutionary psychology and cosmology/advanced physics (even tho much of the maths whooses eight miles over my head).
The way humans are the way they are, behave they way they do. And the fundamental structure of EVERYTHING. Brilliant. I buy whole books of them
Also love a bit of AI/computers, and quite technical archaeology
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
One of the most disgusting and perverse court decisions ever.
I'd suggest his brief should be disbarred for putting forward such horseshit, the judge retired for allowing it and the jury need their collective thick as pigshit skulls banging together. The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
Maybe if you've been liking lots of anti-mask stuff twitter have put 2+2 together and made..well, whatever.
I've not. As I said I almost never use Twitter. I joined in 2009 and have liked a grand total of 10 Tweets in thirteen years. None of which were anti mask or vaxx.
It's just about possible that Twitter's algorithm "knows" that outrage -> engagement, and it's trying to annoy you into spending more time there. How it would "know" that you're not an antivaxxer is a deeper question, but it's possible.
That makes sense. And I suppose it works either way then, if people buy into antivaxx bullshit they might get engaged and if they don't then like me they can get outraged. Either way it's possible Twitter wins.
I wonder though how many other people are getting such misinformation sent to them though? Seems really irresponsible.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
One of the most disgusting and perverse court decisions ever.
I'd suggest his brief should be disbarred for putting forward such horseshit, the judge retired for allowing it and the jury need their collective thick as pigshit skulls banging together. The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
You're assuming the jury acquitted because of that argument. The jury might have heard the "she went back with some bloke in his Aston" and stopped listening.
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
Jesus Christ! And people are bitching and moaning about that fucking statue...
You either support trial by jury or you don't. It's very simple.
I don't. It's why Andrew Harper's murderers got off with manslaughter, it's why a G Maxwell retrial is quite likely. But thenk God justice prevailed in the OJ Simpson case.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
One of the most disgusting and perverse court decisions ever.
I'd suggest his brief should be disbarred for putting forward such horseshit, the judge retired for allowing it and the jury need their collective thick as pigshit skulls banging together. The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
You're assuming the jury acquitted because of that argument. The jury might have heard the "she went back with some bloke in his Aston" and stopped listening.
I think the point about the brief still stands, TBF.
Not like you TSE. I thought the great mind that is yours would have been able to come up with something more original and clever than that. Too busy picking out which outfit to wear?
There's a piece coming up on PB in the next few weekends which says the events of January 6th was the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch and those who ignore it or downplay/defend the events of January 6th risk ensuring America experiences what happened after the Beer Hall Putsch.
And for once, the Nazi analogies hold.
I’ll be interested in that. Is there any opportunity to put a counter-piece into that or you are only allowed to write pieces that toe the accepted wisdom?
Good God, you're such a snivelling wretch.
I always think those who pass moral judgements quickly and easily are just boring, sad c*nts who, if they are male, probably have a 3 inch cock. So far, you are doing nothing to disabuse me of such views.
Perhaps you should report these incidents to the "prejudice reporting in education" database.
I think you’re right. Actually, I think these outpourings of moral condemnations are actually hate crimes and need to be investigated as such.
Speaking of which what is the point of trying the Arbery murderers on federal hate crime charges after sentencing them to life without (in 2 cases) parole? It seems a bit like the posthumous execution of O Cromwell
My (cynical) guess would be to keep it in the headlines and / or motivate Black voters in particular ahead of the Midterms. It’s a slam dunk - they have been convicted as they should have been so no major risk there and you can bring up the narrative of Hate crimes / Race again.
Funnily enough, I don’t think they’re bringing federal hate charges who drive his SUV into the crowd of old people and children even though he made racist comments on his website including threats of violence.
Go figure.
Top tip to joggers: best not to interrupt your training to stroll around someone else's construction site. This applies esp if you are a Jogger of Color and the construction site is in redneckville Ga.
So I assume the story is more complex than that presented on breakfast news this morning?
A bit more. He seems to have been lynched for petty theft.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
One of the most disgusting and perverse court decisions ever.
I'd suggest his brief should be disbarred for putting forward such horseshit, the judge retired for allowing it and the jury need their collective thick as pigshit skulls banging together. The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
You're assuming the jury acquitted because of that argument. The jury might have heard the "she went back with some bloke in his Aston" and stopped listening.
Why on earth include such a preposterous detail if it was a standard he said/she said ?
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
Not really moot. More interesting will be how many of the other 'I'm no fan of Trump but' lads on here will be finding their buts again.
What does PB think? I'd go for lat flows on onset of symptoms, reasonable precautions (no pub, WFH) if possible. All voluntary. Plus booster vax every autumn.
*IF* the Government intends to do what is being suggested here then it is right. One thing we don't want is to end up as a nation of hypochondriacs constantly testing ourselves for bugs and locking ourselves up at home whenever we come up positive, even if we're not ill. It would constitute a permanent curtailment of liberty as well as a permanent reduction in economic productivity, to no useful effect.
Retain testing regimes for medical and care workers and the clinically extremely vulnerable by all means, but we don't want an endless regime of whole population screening. We are past the stage when such interventions are effective in suppressing coronavirus so the drawbacks arguably already outweigh the benefits, even before we get to the stage (which would appear to be coming very soon) when the pandemic phase ends and endemic status is attained.
Covid should be managed with interventions targeted at helping the most vulnerable and with vaccinations for the general population. There may also be a place for medical grade masks for people who are symptomatically ill with respiratory diseases but are unable to stay at home (e.g. if they need to attend medical appointments or do essential shopping.) But that's about it.
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
I don’t see how Prince Andrew is under any pressure whatsoever. His career is finished and he will go down in history as a disgrace to the House of Windsor.
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
Randy Andy needs to hire this dude's barrister, greatest barrister ever, from 2015.
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
One of the most disgusting and perverse court decisions ever.
I'd suggest his brief should be disbarred for putting forward such horseshit, the judge retired for allowing it and the jury need their collective thick as pigshit skulls banging together. The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
You're assuming the jury acquitted because of that argument. The jury might have heard the "she went back with some bloke in his Aston" and stopped listening.
Why on earth include such a preposterous detail if it was a standard he said/she said ?
Well, quite, and had I been on the jury that would have almost certainly led to me saying guilty!
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
I imagine they’ve tracked that you are anti-restrictions and have correlated that to being anti-vaxx as well
Unless they're somehow scraping posts here and associating them I don't know how they would. I don't discuss politics on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media, only here.
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
Not really moot. More interesting will be how many of the other 'I'm no fan of Trump but' lads on here will be finding their buts again.
I miss the bevvy who turned up at 3 in the morning to declare victory last year.
You would think if you were going to pull this move, you would at very least lock yourself away for the period to make sure nobody could doubt your claim.
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
I imagine they’ve tracked that you are anti-restrictions and have correlated that to being anti-vaxx as well
Unless they're somehow scraping posts here and associating them I don't know how they would. I don't discuss politics on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media, only here.
Cookie cross tracking. If you've read articles that are associated to "let's get on with life" in any kind of volume there's about 8 or 9 trackers that will know and sell your profile.
What does PB think? I'd go for lat flows on onset of symptoms, reasonable precautions (no pub, WFH) if possible. All voluntary. Plus booster vax every autumn.
Get vaccinated.
Get boosters as often as required.
Stop all other bullshit. Stop testing. Stop isolating.
I've just had the virus and while it was unpleasant for a couple of days, I've had much worse manflu in prior winters. Based on symptoms alone I'd have just taken 48 hours off, not a week.
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
I imagine they’ve tracked that you are anti-restrictions and have correlated that to being anti-vaxx as well
Unless they're somehow scraping posts here and associating them I don't know how they would. I don't discuss politics on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media, only here.
Cookie cross tracking. If you've read articles that are associated to "let's get on with life" in any kind of volume there's about 8 or 9 trackers that will know and sell your profile.
Something has definitely changed with twitter. My timeline is radically different, despite spending the past 2 months looking at bascially nothing political and certainly not lefty loudmouths. Its been literally 90% machine learning papers.
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
I’ll lay aside my hurt on dissing my theological chat as waffle. On question, it depends who runs. My view is this:
1. I’d prefer if he didn’t run. He’s too decisive and will be older. For the Republicans, I think a Tim Scott would be a good candidate with DeSantis as VP;
2. If he does run, and it’s against Biden or Harris, then, yes, I would back him over either. Both are proving to be even worse than I thought they would be, particularly Biden, whom I thought would be ok-ish;
You would think if you were going to pull this move, you would at very least lock yourself away for the period to make sure nobody could doubt your claim.
Not saying you are wrong, I have not looked at it.
I just don't see why anybody cares, to me this seems like the most boring story in the would, at the moment.
We Have a Pandemic, that is ether about to explode and overrun healthcare or is finally coming to an end. In Kazakhstan we have an attempted revelation, and a Russian army in a new nation to put it down. and plenty of other stuff.
I get it that most people must be interested in this tennis chap, they must if its getting this much attention, so I must be the exception. but can somebody explain to me why is it interesting, why is it impotent, why does anybody care, please help me understand.
Looks like the mirrors have deployed successfully.
Can someone explain something to me please?
I understand that this is looking for images that date to the earliest stars in the universe which have had to travel billions of light years to reach us, which explains why we can essentially "look back in time" to the first stars in the universe.
But what I don't understand is why that light hasn't passed us by already?
Unless we've been travelling from the origins of the universe at either the speed of light or faster than it, why haven't we already missed those images?
It's fortuitous that we haven't but that's the one bit I don't understand so if someone who understands astrophysics better could answer that question I'd be very curious.
The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. So things that were very close to us back when the universe was born are now extremely far away, so far that it takes as long as the age of the universe to see them.
Thanks that helps a bit. I wonder how that worked? I thought faster than speed of light was science fiction.
I can understand eg if we're traveling at 0.7c in one direction and something else is traveling at 0.7c in another direction then relatively that is expansion of faster than the speed of light, without actually traveling faster than it.
But we aren't looking for where those stars are now, we are looking for where they were then.
These stars we are looking for I would have thought wouldn't have had relatively that much time to travel in the opposite direction by when they emitted the light we are looking for. What am I missing?
There is more universe than we can see. Our "visible horizon" is not the edge of space. Think of it like standing on a hill on the Isle of Man. On the horizon you can see Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales, but there is a lot more world beyond your visible horizon.
The other point is that while nothing can travel through spacetime faster than light, spacetime itself can expand faster than light (because spacetime is stretching, not travelling through itself)
Carolyn Andriano, who testified in the trial of sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in New York last month, has claimed that Virginia Giuffre told her in 2001 that she slept with Prince Andrew.
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
I’ll lay aside my hurt on dissing my theological chat as waffle. On question, it depends who runs. My view is this:
1. I’d prefer if he didn’t run. He’s too decisive and will be older. For the Republicans, I think a Tim Scott would be a good candidate with DeSantis as VP;
2. If he does run, and it’s against Biden or Harris, then, yes, I would back him over either. Both are proving to be even worse than I thought they would be, particularly Biden, whom I thought would be ok-ish;
If it was Trump Vs Biden again. would you consider a 3rd party's? if a decant one was to run?
I almost never use Twitter but have been for months getting push notifications of Tweets for people I don't follow who clearly have an antivaxx agenda. I don't know why and it's really irritating and I wonder how many other people are getting this bullshit spread to them by Twitter?
This week I've had multiple Tweet push notifications all along the line of "my husband/wife/mother died from an aneurysm/blood clot/heart inflammation days after their booster jab". Clearly bullshit and again not from anyone I follow.
What the hell is Twitter playing at pushing this misinformation and junk to people?
I imagine they’ve tracked that you are anti-restrictions and have correlated that to being anti-vaxx as well
Unless they're somehow scraping posts here and associating them I don't know how they would. I don't discuss politics on Facebook or Twitter or any other social media, only here.
Cookie cross tracking. If you've read articles that are associated to "let's get on with life" in any kind of volume there's about 8 or 9 trackers that will know and sell your profile.
Something has definitely changed with twitter. My timeline is radically different, despite spending the past 2 months looking at bascially nothing political and certainly not lefty loudmouths. Its been literally 90% machine learning papers.
Mine seems to recommend Robert Bowe. Fuck knows why I'd trust an actor regarding covid
Anyone who thinks the Dems attempted a coup to overturn the 2016 election result needs the mendacious or moron test applied to anything they say.
And moron can be safely ruled out. There are no morons on a site where more people than not understand how spacetime struts its stuff!
Well, Kinabalu, you were pontificating this week about how we could not say the Coulston defendants had committed criminal damage because they had been acquitted of the charges.
Since the FBI has not charged anyone with sedition or insurrection, then surely the Jan 6 rioters cannot be accused of sedition and insurrection either if you would apply your own standards to another case? Or that doesn’t work if it doesn’t fit with your views……
I was - can we go with 'pointing out' rather than 'pontificating'? - pointing out that saying one accepts the verdict AND the act was criminal means one doesn't really accept the verdict.
The mental gymnastics needed to map this onto the Jan 6th Capitol proceedings in any meaningful way are not for me on a Saturday night.
What you said was they couldn’t be said to have committed criminal damage because they had been cleared. So all that doing is applying your logic to this.
Much as you are trying to wriggle out of it, your basic problem is that, if we accept your original argument (as I did), then you can’t call the Jan 6 rioters insurrectionists. You can believe they are but you can’t state it as a fact.
Not that hard.
Ed, the topic merits better than this.
You - for reasons you'll know and I can't - have got yourself into such a lather about 'wokeness' and the Dems and the 'libs', that whole side of life, that you are prepared to defend and go along with what no decent person should defend or go along with.
This, my friend, is the truth. You'd be better off speaking it plainly rather than attempting all this softhead sophistry.
Oh Kinabalu, please don’t start with your “I’m a rational, neutral chap who listens to the evidence” stuff. It comes off as slightly patronising and the truth is you are a partisan and a biased one at that, as I am, when it comes to certain issues.
In any event, the truth is you post far more stuff about social issues and your views than I do, which is why I only have 4000 posts and you over 26000. I’ve only been on here as much as I have these past few days because I have COVID and isolating.
I'm not being patronizing, quite the opposite, I'm opining to you clearly and without artifice. You are so consumed with anti-woke culture war stuff that you've signed up to Donald Trump. That's my read in a nutshell and I'll let you know if it changes.
Well, if you think I have signed up to 100% Donald Trump, you haven't read my posts in the past or, more likely, viewed them through a certain prism. I could go on and on but my simple premise has always been this: in a 2 horse race, you choose whom you think is the better candidate and I thought Trump. Does not mean they are perfect which DJT isn't.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
Should we dispense with all the waffle? I think we should. If he runs again and gets the Nom will you be rooting for him to win back the White House?
Not really moot. More interesting will be how many of the other 'I'm no fan of Trump but' lads on here will be finding their buts again.
I miss the bevvy who turned up at 3 in the morning to declare victory last year.
Comments
I was discussing the American legal system with my Year 8s the other day. Their considered opinion was that it's a complete mess.
Couldn't fault their arguments, TBF...
Thankyou, sincerely
Follow up question: why would one variant of a respiratory virus have a markedly different serial interval to another? Because it spreads silently differently, maybe - bigger or smaller or longer lived aerosols, attacking different parts of the respiratory system?
Or just because the sufferer goes from being infected to infectious much quicker, for some other viro-biological reason?
Like everything else about the immune system, it’s complicated. Wife and I have so far dodged it. Both had exposures to Covid positive people (me in March 2020 sharing coffee with a colleague who definitely had the original version and the wife spent a day in the same office as a colleague in 2021 who had alpha).
Christopher Snowdon
@cjsnowdon
·
2h
A fall in the number of people in hospital with Covid not just in London but in England. Quite remarkable considering case numbers are still very high. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nhsRegion&areaName=London
The claims, made in an interview with the Daily Mail, will ratchet up the pressure on the prince, as it is a contemporaneous report of his alleged sexual assault of the then 17-year-old Giuffre. He has vehemently denied the claims and his lawyers have been urging a US judge to dismiss Giuffre’s civil suit against him.
Andriano, then 14 and living in Florida, said she was texted by Giuffre (formerly Virginia Roberts, before her marriage) in 2001 from London, who claimed she had slept with the prince.
“[Giuffre] said, ‘I got to sleep with him’,” Andriano told the Mail.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/08/virginia-giuffre-told-me-in-2001-she-slept-with-prince-andrew-witness-says
Still don't see it.
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1479861424646148103
My very vague understanding is that it could be based on where it reproduces (ie higher in the respiratory system MIGHT contribute to that) but that’s just a vague impression I got and is very probably, if true, just a small part of it.
If its remains nearer the mouth and nose maybe you are simply more likely to spread it quicker, coughing and sneezing, or just breathing, and thereby shedding a greater viral load at the same time?
He’ll never be convicted. He’ll never be cleared. It’s over.
But I'm not going to reactor it.
"Approximately 70 have been sentenced — around 30 received prison time and the others got probation."
"A necessary consequence of the prosecutorial approach of charging less serious offenses first is that courts impose shorter sentences before they impose longer ones,"
As for the US Capitol stuff, I have no idea what exact charges the people involved are facing, or should be facing, me being not the go-to on such matters, but I'm happy with the following statement, which is what this is really all about -
Donald Trump and the goons in his circle made a concerted attempt over a prolonged period to overturn by chicanery, intimidation & violence the results of a free & fair US presidential election.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220106&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily
"Using lateral flow tests to swab the throat and nose is more accurate than simply relying on nasal samples, senior health officials believe, as ministers consider updating advice for tens of millions of test users.
The Telegraph understands ministers are examining data which shows that swabbing someone's throat as well as their nose - even with a kit designed just for the nose - is more likely to detect Covid-19 and can pick up evidence of the virus as much as a day earlier than simply relying on nose samples."
Telegraph
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/08/royals-await-anxiously-the-fallout-from-prince-andrews-disgrace
Makes the point that there are no good options for the DoY. The *best* is:
"The prince’s lawyers have taken an aggressive approach to protecting their client. They first argued that the court summons had not been properly served, then attempted to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Giuffre doesn’t live in the US.
Now they are seeking their client’s salvation with the grim fact that he qualifies as a potential defendant in any sex abuse case connected to Epstein. In other words, it appears his possible culpability is being used as his defence.
Even if this legal loophole works, and Kaplan dismisses the case, it will be an outcome that will not clear the prince’s name, which his friends insist is his prime aim. Instead, added to all those letters that come after his title, will be a toxic question mark."
So they're going to do it, aren't they?
Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
·
3h
The James Webb Space Telescope is now fully deployed. This is a remarkable engineering achievement that 99 percent of the world will not appreciate. But those of us who know, know. And we are in awe.
Johnson has had a good run in the news cycles since Christmas. The media narrative has been Johnson got Covid right whilst the rest of the UK and the world got it horribly wrong.
Because as you say a disease with R20 sounds horribly scary but if its serial interval is ten years then it isn't
Whereas a disease with R1.5 looks a bit feeble, but it is has a serial interval of 3 hours, then fuck
Is there an overarching number which combines these variables? That number would give us a better measure of the true threat of any variant
An interesting article on the R number:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02009-w
LONDON - A Saudi millionaire was cleared of raping a teenager after telling the court that he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the teenager as she slept on the sofa in his flat in Maida Vale, west London, in August in 2014.
But he claimed that he might have fallen on top of her while his penis was poking out the top of his underwear,
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/saudi-millionaire-cleared-of-rape-after-claiming-he-fell-and-accidentally-penetrated
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-018-0055-5
How long will it take for someone to choke to death on a swallowed swab, I wonder?
Regardless, we're back to the masks in schools policy again. Only this time I wouldn't be surprised if, instead of having some low quality data that had been analysed and offered no actual evidence, they were simply flying on a hunch.
Basically, like so much of this, it’s complicated...
The kits with short swabs have short swabs for a reason.
The question is has enough evidence being found to charge them with sedition and insurrection. You can believe that they planned insurrection (I don't - I think they were rioters who were egged on by Trump and then got intoxicated on the lust of thinking they could overturn things) but there has been no conviction or charge.
Carnyx's point is right - there still might be. But it is a year now and the suspects were rounded up pretty quickly. And, given the DOJ would love to charge them with sedition / insurrection, there is a fair chance they know the charges wouldn't stick - which, of course, would then mean that the insurrection accusation would have failed in court.
Either way could be one of the most important all-cabinet decisions in years.
Tho the deeper you dig on much of this, the more you realise how much the experts themselves disagree on fundamental aspects. eg there is still serious dispute as to whether viruses are "alive" or not
https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html
I heartily applaud your interest, and keep asking questions, like a demented three year old. There are no bad questions.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1479898305433849862?t=wcdVTxzkkeAI8IZ8rNbgHw&s=19
What does PB think? I'd go for lat flows on onset of symptoms, reasonable precautions (no pub, WFH) if possible. All voluntary. Plus booster vax every autumn.
I think though it may also reflect differences when it comes to outlook. I'm a Catholic so believe that what you should focus on people's actions and that is how you judge them, and that everyone is a sinner so you should be careful of judgements and seeing things in black and white terms. I suspect your mindset is more Calvinist which, of course, believes that being a Calvinist automatically makes you naturally good, regardless of what you do, and - conversely - that, if you are not a Calvinist, you are wrong.
Now, obviously, I do not think you are religious but I suspect you have the secular equivalent which is "I hold these beliefs, therefore I must be right / good". I find that a dangerous mindset.
I confess I never expected to find virology and epidemiology so absorbing, but turns out they are - at least in the whirlwind of a global pandemic
My favourites are probably evolutionary psychology and cosmology/advanced physics (even tho much of the maths whooses eight miles over my head).
The way humans are the way they are, behave they way they do. And the fundamental structure of EVERYTHING. Brilliant. I buy whole books of them
Also love a bit of AI/computers, and quite technical archaeology
I read more science than I do fiction
The only possible sane conclusion is the jury was paid off in the case.
I wonder though how many other people are getting such misinformation sent to them though? Seems really irresponsible.
More interesting will be how many of the other 'I'm no fan of Trump but' lads on here will be finding their buts again.
Retain testing regimes for medical and care workers and the clinically extremely vulnerable by all means, but we don't want an endless regime of whole population screening. We are past the stage when such interventions are effective in suppressing coronavirus so the drawbacks arguably already outweigh the benefits, even before we get to the stage (which would appear to be coming very soon) when the pandemic phase ends and endemic status is attained.
Covid should be managed with interventions targeted at helping the most vulnerable and with vaccinations for the general population. There may also be a place for medical grade masks for people who are symptomatically ill with respiratory diseases but are unable to stay at home (e.g. if they need to attend medical appointments or do essential shopping.) But that's about it.
But the average juror is not that intelligent.
LAB: 39% (-)
CON: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 5% (-1)
via
@OpiniumResearch
, 05 - 07 Jan
Chgs. w/ Dec
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1479906553650196483
https://twitter.com/nmsonline/status/1479803491140968451?t=VF7w6Of57Mg5YKp2LfiF9g&s=19
You would think if you were going to pull this move, you would at very least lock yourself away for the period to make sure nobody could doubt your claim.
Get boosters as often as required.
Stop all other bullshit. Stop testing. Stop isolating.
I've just had the virus and while it was unpleasant for a couple of days, I've had much worse manflu in prior winters. Based on symptoms alone I'd have just taken 48 hours off, not a week.
1. I’d prefer if he didn’t run. He’s too decisive and will be older. For the Republicans, I think a Tim Scott would be a good candidate with DeSantis as VP;
2. If he does run, and it’s against Biden or Harris, then, yes, I would back him over either. Both are proving to be even worse than I thought they would be, particularly Biden, whom I thought would be ok-ish;
I just don't see why anybody cares, to me this seems like the most boring story in the would, at the moment.
We Have a Pandemic, that is ether about to explode and overrun healthcare or is finally coming to an end.
In Kazakhstan we have an attempted revelation, and a Russian army in a new nation to put it down.
and plenty of other stuff.
I get it that most people must be interested in this tennis chap, they must if its getting this much attention, so I must be the exception. but can somebody explain to me why is it interesting, why is it impotent, why does anybody care, please help me understand.