Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
The other way round in my case and in the case of several other people I know. Had the symptoms of a common cold, did an LFT - negative, then a few days later got the positive test.
So I passed on Covid to a few people when I probably would have taken extra precautions if I thought it was Covid.
That is a bizarre attitude. Why go out and spread your germs whether it’s a cold or covid? For many, the former is worse than the latter.
I didn't go out and spread my germs. But I also didn't go into full isolation until a couple of days later when the LFTs showed positive. Nor did I get in touch with the people I was in close contact with so they could take whatever measures they wish, which I would have done if I had known it was Covid.
The issue is that I treated what I thought was a cold as a cold, rather than as potential Covid. Which I regret on others' accounts. It didn't make any difference to me personally.
I think the opposite of the situation you posed in your original post.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
On Le Pen, obviously she has the national front background, but how extreme is she and her party today?
As a comparison which UK politicians would be closest to her politics?
Continuity UKIP maybe.
From talking with fairly non-political French friends - she is still seen as The Fascist. Doesn't matter what she does or says, that is what they see her as. Forever.
Middle class, university educated people, so obviously not representative of the whole population.
It's disturbing that as many as 47% may vote for her in the second round. Must be a sign that something is seriously wrong with French politics.
That 35 or so % of our electorate indicate that they will vote for the dishonest Johnson and his acolytes, what does that say about ours?
It says nothing more than that the alternatives are seen as worse.
All politics at all times is relative. Personally at this moment I would vote Labour in a GE, which would be the first time for years. But Labour would only have to hint at tolerating or encouraging the Stalinist/Stop the War left to switch it back again.
There are only two parties that can lead a government, and we have to have one. Both are hugely flawed; both, at this moment, have very few if any genuine and deep detailed policy differences. (If I am wrong would someone point them out?)
You're right. From my perspective as a leftie, it's all a bit depressing, but I accept that the internal argument has been decisively won by the centrists in the party - they want us to win for a change, not pursue this or that massive reform. Starmer is not frivolous, corrupt or incompetent, and he, Reeves and the rest have the air of people interested in serious government, while the Cabinet, several of whom I get on with well personally, seem collectively to have rather lost the plot. So I'm supporting Starmer and expect him to win and then manage the country competently without any amazing reforms.
On Le Pen, obviously she has the national front background, but how extreme is she and her party today?
As a comparison which UK politicians would be closest to her politics?
Continuity UKIP maybe.
From talking with fairly non-political French friends - she is still seen as The Fascist. Doesn't matter what she does or says, that is what they see her as. Forever.
Middle class, university educated people, so obviously not representative of the whole population.
It's disturbing that as many as 47% may vote for her in the second round. Must be a sign that something is seriously wrong with French politics.
That 35 or so % of our electorate indicate that they will vote for the dishonest Johnson and his acolytes, what does that say about ours?
46% voted Conservative or Brexit Party here in 2019
I think the interesting thing there is that whilst I personally have no doubt that Farage is far right by most measures, a lot of British people were either not aware, or chose not to believe this, which while regrettable, may to some extent be forgivable. There can be no such benefit of the doubt given to French voters who vote for Le Pen. She is with out any shadow of the doubt of the far right; the modern heir to Franco and Mussolini.
I agree. In particular although Farage is of the right and is definitely a populist and a very effective one at that he has never come over as a fascist to me.
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
One of the problems with people throwing "fascist" around as a generic term of abuse is that it leaves us ill equipped to identify actual fascists whose policies and behaviours can seem comparatively innocuous until examined as a whole, and over time.
Most modern fascists will also protest their reasonableness and popularity.
On Le Pen, obviously she has the national front background, but how extreme is she and her party today?
As a comparison which UK politicians would be closest to her politics?
Continuity UKIP maybe.
From talking with fairly non-political French friends - she is still seen as The Fascist. Doesn't matter what she does or says, that is what they see her as. Forever.
Middle class, university educated people, so obviously not representative of the whole population.
It's disturbing that as many as 47% may vote for her in the second round. Must be a sign that something is seriously wrong with French politics.
That 35 or so % of our electorate indicate that they will vote for the dishonest Johnson and his acolytes, what does that say about ours?
46% voted Conservative or Brexit Party here in 2019
I think the interesting thing there is that whilst I personally have no doubt that Farage is far right by most measures, a lot of British people were either not aware, or chose not to believe this, which while regrettable, may to some extent be forgivable. There can be no such benefit of the doubt given to French voters who vote for Le Pen. She is with out any shadow of the doubt of the far right; the modern heir to Franco and Mussolini.
I agree. In particular although Farage is of the right and is definitely a populist and a very effective one at that he has never come over as a fascist to me.
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
One of the problems with people throwing "fascist" around as a generic term of abuse is that it leaves us ill equipped to identify actual fascists whose policies and behaviours can seem comparatively innocuous until examined as a whole, and over time.
Most modern fascists will also protest their reasonableness and popularity.
I presume non modern fascist also claimed to be reasonable and popular!
On Le Pen, obviously she has the national front background, but how extreme is she and her party today?
As a comparison which UK politicians would be closest to her politics?
Continuity UKIP maybe.
From talking with fairly non-political French friends - she is still seen as The Fascist. Doesn't matter what she does or says, that is what they see her as. Forever.
Middle class, university educated people, so obviously not representative of the whole population.
It's disturbing that as many as 47% may vote for her in the second round. Must be a sign that something is seriously wrong with French politics.
That 35 or so % of our electorate indicate that they will vote for the dishonest Johnson and his acolytes, what does that say about ours?
46% voted Conservative or Brexit Party here in 2019
I think the interesting thing there is that whilst I personally have no doubt that Farage is far right by most measures, a lot of British people were either not aware, or chose not to believe this, which while regrettable, may to some extent be forgivable. There can be no such benefit of the doubt given to French voters who vote for Le Pen. She is with out any shadow of the doubt of the far right; the modern heir to Franco and Mussolini.
I agree. In particular although Farage is of the right and is definitely a populist and a very effective one at that he has never come over as a fascist to me.
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
On Le Pen, obviously she has the national front background, but how extreme is she and her party today?
As a comparison which UK politicians would be closest to her politics?
Continuity UKIP maybe.
From talking with fairly non-political French friends - she is still seen as The Fascist. Doesn't matter what she does or says, that is what they see her as. Forever.
Middle class, university educated people, so obviously not representative of the whole population.
It's disturbing that as many as 47% may vote for her in the second round. Must be a sign that something is seriously wrong with French politics.
That 35 or so % of our electorate indicate that they will vote for the dishonest Johnson and his acolytes, what does that say about ours?
46% voted Conservative or Brexit Party here in 2019
Russian meddling and corruption.
No just 45 to 50% are willing to vote for the populist right both here, the USA and France
Partly at any rate, and probably significantly, as a result of said R m & c.
No because of desire for greater immigration controls, regained sovereignty and cultural values primarily in France, the UK and US. Added on in the UK and US to the traditional Conservative home owning vote
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
Is it though....IMO, no functioning opposition isn't good a thing, regardless of who is in power. Some level of checks and balances, even if you can't win a vote in HoC, you can shape media narratives, which can force changes / U-turns. An overlooked aspect with Jezza led Labour party, was absolutely useless at mounting any sort of functioning opposition.
'In an interview with GB News to be broadcast on Thursday, DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said although it was said his natural allies in Westminster should be the Tories, he found Labour gave Northern Ireland a “far better deal”.
Speaking to Gloria De Piero, Paisley said: “Yes, the Conservatives call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party, but I believe that the Conservative Party today is becoming more and more an English nationalist party that doesn’t really understand what’s going on in Scotland, certainly in Northern Ireland, and in other regions.'
and
'Asked if he trusted Johnson to resolve the Northern Ireland Protocol wrangling, he said: “I don’t trust anyone in politics, I’ve become really sceptical, and I think that it’s foolish to put your trust in people. [...] But the idea that I’m trusting this particular politician, I think those days have long since gone.”
What do we think the toughest within each pot is ?
Germany - Serbia - UEFA ?
Quite possibly, but obviously only two UEFA teams to a group. Thinking about it, I wouldn't want Germany, Canada and then anyone from Pot 3. Only needs two decent teams to knock you out.
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
Yes Nick resume work. You have a sniffle and a cough it's ok you'll get through it. Did you have this internal angst when you have previously had colds or the flu?
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I not totally convinced that the UK government can do much about the current bout of inflation. Shooting all the Greens is far too extreme, so gas prices will continue to rise. Loons closing nuclear power stations will continue and 'nice' low carbon methods can't manage yet.
The spectre of women with cocks is an added extra you get with some left-leaning governments. Amusing, but irritating to many more than you think (women, for instance).
Starmer made a good start, but he's a bit of a soft-shite. Boris is a lazy, clown, but hopefully, he'll become bored and swan off somewhere else. Angela should have taken the chance offered, but refused at the first real fence. "Let's not talk about it, please."
“The 2018 amendment was supposed to improve the employment protection of seafarers. It has ended up removing the penalty for failing to notify the government of dismissals in good time, which is disappointing.”
Andrew Burns QC - gave evidence to joint select committes on P&O
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
'In an interview with GB News to be broadcast on Thursday, DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said although it was said his natural allies in Westminster should be the Tories, he found Labour gave Northern Ireland a “far better deal”.
Speaking to Gloria De Piero, Paisley said: “Yes, the Conservatives call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party, but I believe that the Conservative Party today is becoming more and more an English nationalist party that doesn’t really understand what’s going on in Scotland, certainly in Northern Ireland, and in other regions.'
and
'Asked if he trusted Johnson to resolve the Northern Ireland Protocol wrangling, he said: “I don’t trust anyone in politics, I’ve become really sceptical, and I think that it’s foolish to put your trust in people. [...] But the idea that I’m trusting this particular politician, I think those days have long since gone.”
If Starmer promised closer alignment to the SM and CU for the whole UK I expect they would now
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
That's a thought-provoking list. It's reassuring personally as I don't tick any of the boxes, but I do recognise some in people I've met. He sounds so sensible (e.g. about Nazism being a separate thing, about overuse of the term fascist, and about the irrelevance of different reasons for resistance) that I'm tempted to try him as a writer. The Name of the Rose sounded like a frustrating puzzle novel, but maybe not - do others recommend it, or others?
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
They need to adopt the policy set out by me the other day. Problem solved.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Whilst Cameron copied Blair's communication style, Labour in 1997 was a huge, overdue change and the period 97-10 was substantially different to now. The graph circulating last week on income disparity and NHS satisfaction today makes that case very strongly.
Sitting in his gold-plated office, Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov publicly criticizes Russian head negotiator Vladimir Medinsky for supposedly being too accommodating to Ukraine. The cracks are starting to show.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Whilst Cameron copied Blair's communication style, Labour in 1997 was a huge, overdue change and the period 97-10 was substantially different to now. The graph circulating last week on income disparity and NHS satisfaction today makes that case very strongly.
Boris is of course spending more than Blair did from 1997 to 2001.
Just this government has implemented Brexit and is more culturally conservative than New Labour and Cameron were
'In an interview with GB News to be broadcast on Thursday, DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said although it was said his natural allies in Westminster should be the Tories, he found Labour gave Northern Ireland a “far better deal”.
Speaking to Gloria De Piero, Paisley said: “Yes, the Conservatives call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party, but I believe that the Conservative Party today is becoming more and more an English nationalist party that doesn’t really understand what’s going on in Scotland, certainly in Northern Ireland, and in other regions.'
and
'Asked if he trusted Johnson to resolve the Northern Ireland Protocol wrangling, he said: “I don’t trust anyone in politics, I’ve become really sceptical, and I think that it’s foolish to put your trust in people. [...] But the idea that I’m trusting this particular politician, I think those days have long since gone.”
If Starmer promised closer alignment to the SM and CU for the whole UK I expect they would now
As ever the Northern Irish will doubtless support whoever promises them more English money, as if £5,000 per head per year isn't enough.
That's a thought-provoking list. It's reassuring personally as I don't tick any of the boxes, but I do recognise some in people I've met. He sounds so sensible (e.g. about Nazism being a separate thing, about overuse of the term fascist, and about the irrelevance of different reasons for resistance) that I'm tempted to try him as a writer. The Name of the Rose sounded like a frustrating puzzle novel, but maybe not - do others recommend it, or others?
The Name of the Rose is a superb read, and really evokes the mediaeval mindset and world in a way I've never seen in any other fiction. It even manages to come up with an ending which justifies the mystery of the plot quite convincingly.
I wouldn't recommend any of his other novels, though. I've read (or tried to read) several, and whilst they have some interesting stuff in them, they don't quite work.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Whilst Cameron copied Blair's communication style, Labour in 1997 was a huge, overdue change and the period 97-10 was substantially different to now. The graph circulating last week on income disparity and NHS satisfaction today makes that case very strongly.
Boris is of course spending more than Blair did from 1997 to 2001.
Just this government has implemented Brexit and is more culturally conservative than New Labour and Cameron were
Boris is taxing more, but delivering less value. 2016 was the end of the era that started in 1997.
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
That's a thought-provoking list. It's reassuring personally as I don't tick any of the boxes, but I do recognise some in people I've met. He sounds so sensible (e.g. about Nazism being a separate thing, about overuse of the term fascist, and about the irrelevance of different reasons for resistance) that I'm tempted to try him as a writer. The Name of the Rose sounded like a frustrating puzzle novel, but maybe not - do others recommend it, or others?
Very good for what it is (popular, engaging, not high brow but a very good read).
Edit: I can't quite remember it because I read it in my teens which is where I think the book is best aimed. But I do remember hugely enjoying it then.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
I note the list misses out 2010 when the Heir to Blair got himself in a coalition.
I'm also not sure I'd call Ted Heath particularly Conservative.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
I note Rentoul misses out 2010 when the Heir to Blair got himself in a coalition.
I'm also not sure I'd call Ted Heath particularly Conservative.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
And good government
Not sure we've really had that since about November 22 1990.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
And good government
Not sure we've really had that since about November 22 1990.
And as we established yesterday that everybody born after 1980 are thickies*, so little chance for the future.
* for avoidance of doubt this is a joke based on Leon sweeping generalisations.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
That would only make a difference if there was some male (well ...) sibling who was already on the scene. And who had already the rights of being an heir (in terms of the entail and, in many cases, a courtesy title and so on). So presumably that would have violated the pre-existing rights of, say, the Master of Tannochbrae if [edit] his big sister Lord Glentumblers's eldest daughter suddenly felt like transitioning.
Edit also: the same would apply to the Royal Family. So Labour wouldn't want to rock that boat.
There's a type of politician, most commonly though not exclusively on the populist right, who doesn't address issues by "What do I/my ideology think is best?" or "What does decency require?" but simply "What will gain attention for me, and probably votes?" I see Farage in that category. There are very few things I can't imagine his being willing to say, but I don't imagine he's driven by a fascist agenda.
I wonder if that isn't also true of Le Pen to some extent. Her father was a straightforward fascist, and unwilling to pretend to be anything else. Marine Le Pen seems perfectly capable of adopting more centrist positions to win votes, or drop them for the same reason. Yes, she's a sort of heir to various far right villains, but I suspect that real fascists regard her with some suspicion as just another politicians. Hence Zemmour.
Obviously I want her to lose massively. But I wouldn't think that if she gets 45% (and I really doubt if it'll be more despite a couple of different polls) that means 45% of the French are symnpathetic to fascism.
It's wrong to throw idle accusations around, but they tick some of these boxes...
That's a thought-provoking list. It's reassuring personally as I don't tick any of the boxes, but I do recognise some in people I've met. He sounds so sensible (e.g. about Nazism being a separate thing, about overuse of the term fascist, and about the irrelevance of different reasons for resistance) that I'm tempted to try him as a writer. The Name of the Rose sounded like a frustrating puzzle novel, but maybe not - do others recommend it, or others?
He is that rare thing. An intellectual with an ability to spin a yarn. One which can be difficult and yet engaging. I'd recommend giving him a go. His politics wouldn't be too far from yours. I found him a little frustrating. Too clever by half at times. But it won't insult your intelligence. Quite the opposite. Dan Brown he ain't. He also wrote children's books. I haven't read any, but I would be intrigued.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
We know Trump, Boris and Putin are appalling people. Le Pen has appalling policies but alarmingly may be less of a liar and less corruptable.
You're joking, aren't you?
Financial links between Le Pen's National Rally and the Kremlin make Johnson and Trump look small-time.
Mark my words, you're better off betting on Le Pen seeing the inside of a prison cell on corruption charges than you are betting on her seeing the inside of the Élysée Palace's private quarters.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Snow, then sleet, then hail and now back to snow here in Midlands.
Sitting in his gold-plated office, Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov publicly criticizes Russian head negotiator Vladimir Medinsky for supposedly being too accommodating to Ukraine. The cracks are starting to show.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
That would only make a difference if there was some male (well ...) sibling who was already on the scene. And who had already the rights of being an heir (in terms of the entail and, in many cases, a courtesy title and so on). So presumably that would have violated the pre-existing rights of, say, the Master of Tannochbrae if [edit] his big sister Lord Glentumblers's eldest daughter suddenly felt like transitioning.
Edit also: the same would apply to the Royal Family. So Labour wouldn't want to rock that boat.
No, we've fixed it for the Royals. If George had been Georgina she'd have been in line for the top job, despite Louis
Russian troops at Chernobyl are being treated for radiation sickness in Belarus, an employee at the Ukrainian state agency overseeing the exclusion zone has claimed.
Yaroslav Yemelianenko said yesterday that 'another batch of Russians' had been taken to the 'Belarusian Radiation Medicine Center in Gomel' for treatment.
It comes after the nuclear power plant's workers said Russian soldiers' arrival at Chernobyl without anti-radiation gear when Moscow's forces seized the site last month was 'suicidal'.
Yemelianenko said the Kremlin's men had fallen ill because they failed to follow 'rules for dealing' with the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the surrounding highly toxic zone known as the Red Forest.
'With minimal intelligence in command or soldiers, these consequences could have been avoided,' he said, adding that radiation protection is 'mandatory because radiation is physics – it works without regard to status or shoulder straps.'
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
That would only make a difference if there was some male (well ...) sibling who was already on the scene. And who had already the rights of being an heir (in terms of the entail and, in many cases, a courtesy title and so on). So presumably that would have violated the pre-existing rights of, say, the Master of Tannochbrae if [edit] his big sister Lord Glentumblers's eldest daughter suddenly felt like transitioning.
Edit also: the same would apply to the Royal Family. So Labour wouldn't want to rock that boat.
No, we've fixed it for the Royals. If George had been Georgina she'd have been in line for the top job, despite Louis
Oh, really? Thanks. I obviously don't cringe enough in terms of keeping up with the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Only a few flakes here in the east London 'burbs! :jealous:
Edit: linked to wrong post. This should be linked to reports of Putin not being told the truth by his advisors.
Personally, I think these reports are a load of guff. If one thing is for sure, it is that Putin himself is not blocked from watching Western media. All the top Iraqi leadership were hooked on CNN in 1991.
Now, he may discount Western reporting as propaganda, given how much he pushes so many bare-faced lies himself. But his is most certainly not unaware of the alternative truth to that being offered by his own circle.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
And good government
Not sure we've really had that since about November 22 1990.
And as we established yesterday that everybody born after 1980 are thickies*, so little chance for the future.
* for avoidance of doubt this is a joke based on Leon sweeping generalisations.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
Surely the fundamental conflict you raise is between the primacy of single sex spaces and having *any* legal route to gender change that doesn't involve mandatory surgery. It's not in essence about how hard or easy the process is (important though that is).
Unless a physical sex change is on the critical path to the legal gender change you are always going to have male-bodied trans women and thus be faced with picking one of the following approaches:
(a) Trans women *are* women - so they can access women's spaces. The default is inclusion. Exceptions possible but must be justified.
(b) Trans women are *not* women - so they cannot access women's spaces. The default is exclusion. Exceptions possible but must be justified.
Forgetting about how we might disagree on what the answer should be, that's a correct framing, isn't it?
Sitting in his gold-plated office, Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov publicly criticizes Russian head negotiator Vladimir Medinsky for supposedly being too accommodating to Ukraine. The cracks are starting to show.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
That would only make a difference if there was some male (well ...) sibling who was already on the scene. And who had already the rights of being an heir (in terms of the entail and, in many cases, a courtesy title and so on). So presumably that would have violated the pre-existing rights of, say, the Master of Tannochbrae if [edit] his big sister Lord Glentumblers's eldest daughter suddenly felt like transitioning.
Edit also: the same would apply to the Royal Family. So Labour wouldn't want to rock that boat.
No, we've fixed it for the Royals. If George had been Georgina she'd have been in line for the top job, despite Louis
Oh, really? Thanks. I obviously don't cringe enough in terms of keeping up with the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
You say that, but I bet you have dreams abouth the Rothesays coming to tea.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
As it stands the husband of a male peer does not have any title. Which is equally iniquitous (according at least to my friends who are in that position!).
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
And good government
Not sure we've really had that since about November 22 1990.
And as we established yesterday that everybody born after 1980 are thickies*, so little chance for the future.
* for avoidance of doubt this is a joke based on Leon sweeping generalisations.
1960s, wasn't it?
I think the decrease started in kids tested in the mid 70s (so born 60s), but takes a while for it to drop off to thickie level....but I am post 1980, so am a thickie, so wouldn't know, too confusing for me.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
You put winter coats away, ever? Where do you think you live - Southern Spain??
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
Yes Nick resume work. You have a sniffle and a cough it's ok you'll get through it. Did you have this internal angst when you have previously had colds or the flu?
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
Topping they do say the hospitals in Scotland are chocker with people with Covid. Had someone last week , their sister had heart attack and had to stay in ambulance more than 5 hours as no beds , place rammed.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
It was delightful defeating Tories 97-10. Not so much defeating them, but making them utterly irrelevant.
The differences between Cameron and Blair were less significant than the differences between Blair and the Labour left and Cameron and the Conservative right.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
And good government
Not sure we've really had that since about November 22 1990.
And as we established yesterday that everybody born after 1980 are thickies*, so little chance for the future.
* for avoidance of doubt this is a joke based on Leon sweeping generalisations.
Going by on here it is fairly accurate though, but would say common sense
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
Yes Nick resume work. You have a sniffle and a cough it's ok you'll get through it. Did you have this internal angst when you have previously had colds or the flu?
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
Topping they do say the hospitals in Scotland are chocker with people with Covid. Had someone last week , their sister had heart attack and had to stay in ambulance more than 5 hours as no beds , place rammed.
Interesting thanks for that Malc - R4 had a piece on it (yday I think) where the "one person" stat was used.
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
You seek to be pretty ignorant if that's what you think.
I believe the free advice is "vaccines work so Covid is just another virus now, so why test any more?"
Covid or Common Cold or Flu it doesn't matter. Treat your symptoms. If you feel rotten, stay at home, as you would have before you'd even heard of Covid. If you're fine - don't.
And all that would be fine if BA1 Omicron was the virus and we're all now jabbed so screw it. Except it isn't - BA2 is the variant making people ill and we still need to keep track of variants which can keep mutating around the vaccines. We can't track if we don't bother to test any more.
We all need to treat it as any other virus - as we all agree (now, it wasn't the other fella's position) if you are ill you stay home. But largely we know that Norovirus is the arse-spraying mayhem friend of primary schools - it is what it is. If only Covid would stay as it is.
Covid is staying as it is. Viruses mutate, that's nothing new, but it is still Covid and the vaccine still works.
Common cold and influenza mutate too. We can monitor with scientific monitoring not every hypochondriac and their dog getting tested daily.
Wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia, which make up a vital part of the world's food supply are still being blocked by Russia from leaving the Black Sea, Germany's largest agricultural trader BayWa said this week.
"Zero [grain] is currently being exported from the ports of Ukraine — nothing is leaving the country at all," Jörg-Simon Immerz, head of the grain trading at BayWa, told dpa news agency.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Blue sky and sunshine yet again on west coast of Scotland, been like that for weeks now.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Snow, then sleet, then hail and now back to snow here in Midlands.
it was snowing here for about 20 minutes, but stopped and now sun it out
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
Yes Nick resume work. You have a sniffle and a cough it's ok you'll get through it. Did you have this internal angst when you have previously had colds or the flu?
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
Topping they do say the hospitals in Scotland are chocker with people with Covid. Had someone last week , their sister had heart attack and had to stay in ambulance more than 5 hours as no beds , place rammed.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Rachel Reeves has just given an excellent answer to Kay Burley on the gender debate
Upped her game since she was on R4 then:
Rachel Reeves tries and fails to square the Keir Starmer circle. Biology is a big part of sex but there are also people who strongly identify as the other sex and they have the "right" to self identify but also women are entitled to single sex spaces. WHICH IS IT? @BBCR4Today
LOL, day 3 of this. You’d have thought they’d have agreed on a coherent answer to the question by now.
Can’t wait for the day-long conference debate on the subject, selected in favour of debating energy prices or inflation.
They're failing because you can have self-ID or single sex spaces. You cannot have both. They are unwilling to make a choice. Or have made a choice which they know will be unpopular and are trying to hide it.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
I hope you aren't suggesting they, er, need to grow some balls?
The funniest thing I learnt recently on this topic was that when the GRA was being introduced by Labour they insisted on a clause being put in to ensure that if the eldest daughter of a peer transitioned to being a man she still would not inherit a peerage.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender - it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire - the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
The British aristocracy probably promised that they would block the legislation in the Lords unless these changes were made. See “The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes: And the Unwritten History of the Trans Experience” by Zoë Playdon for a deep dive into how the British aristocracy undid decades of work advancing trans rights back in the late 60s.
Russian troops at Chernobyl are being treated for radiation sickness in Belarus, an employee at the Ukrainian state agency overseeing the exclusion zone has claimed.
Yaroslav Yemelianenko said yesterday that 'another batch of Russians' had been taken to the 'Belarusian Radiation Medicine Center in Gomel' for treatment.
It comes after the nuclear power plant's workers said Russian soldiers' arrival at Chernobyl without anti-radiation gear when Moscow's forces seized the site last month was 'suicidal'.
Yemelianenko said the Kremlin's men had fallen ill because they failed to follow 'rules for dealing' with the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the surrounding highly toxic zone known as the Red Forest.
'With minimal intelligence in command or soldiers, these consequences could have been avoided,' he said, adding that radiation protection is 'mandatory because radiation is physics – it works without regard to status or shoulder straps.'
That was not difficult to predict. I just hope that the Russians give it up without a fight, this would be a bad place for the the Ukrainians to have to recapture by force.
I not totally convinced that the UK government can do much about the current bout of inflation. Shooting all the Greens is far too extreme, so gas prices will continue to rise. Loons closing nuclear power stations will continue and 'nice' low carbon methods can't manage yet.
The spectre of women with cocks is an added extra you get with some left-leaning governments. Amusing, but irritating to many more than you think (women, for instance).
Starmer made a good start, but he's a bit of a soft-shite. Boris is a lazy, clown, but hopefully, he'll become bored and swan off somewhere else. Angela should have taken the chance offered, but refused at the first real fence. "Let's not talk about it, please."
Could you please explain where your hope that Boris Johnson - a man for whom being caught bang to rights lying to parliament on multiple occasions raises not even a thought of resigning - will "become bored and swan off somewhere else" is coming from?
Russian troops at Chernobyl are being treated for radiation sickness in Belarus, an employee at the Ukrainian state agency overseeing the exclusion zone has claimed.
Yaroslav Yemelianenko said yesterday that 'another batch of Russians' had been taken to the 'Belarusian Radiation Medicine Center in Gomel' for treatment.
It comes after the nuclear power plant's workers said Russian soldiers' arrival at Chernobyl without anti-radiation gear when Moscow's forces seized the site last month was 'suicidal'.
Yemelianenko said the Kremlin's men had fallen ill because they failed to follow 'rules for dealing' with the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the surrounding highly toxic zone known as the Red Forest.
'With minimal intelligence in command or soldiers, these consequences could have been avoided,' he said, adding that radiation protection is 'mandatory because radiation is physics – it works without regard to status or shoulder straps.'
That was not difficult to predict. I just hope that the Russians give it up without a fight, this would be a bad place for the the Ukrainians to have to recapture by force.
What was especially demented was that the Russians dug in. That is, dug trenches in some of the worst radiation spots.
According to one account, they used explosive charges to break up the ground.
Wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia, which make up a vital part of the world's food supply are still being blocked by Russia from leaving the Black Sea, Germany's largest agricultural trader BayWa said this week.
"Zero [grain] is currently being exported from the ports of Ukraine — nothing is leaving the country at all," Jörg-Simon Immerz, head of the grain trading at BayWa, told dpa news agency.
The longer this kind of economic disruption goes on, the more countries will gain a direct interest in ending the conflict decisively. It's important that they don't get tempted to come down on Putin's side.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Ne'er cast a clout Till May be out
[May = hawthorn blossom]
But beware the Blackthorn Winter!
[Blackthorn is definitely in full flower here, it comes out before the leaves]
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
You put winter coats away, ever? Where do you think you live - Southern Spain??
bloody softies , why would you need a coat in the UK apart from heavy rain
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Edit: linked to wrong post. This should be linked to reports of Putin not being told the truth by his advisors.
Personally, I think these reports are a load of guff. If one thing is for sure, it is that Putin himself is not blocked from watching Western media. All the top Iraqi leadership were hooked on CNN in 1991.
Now, he may discount Western reporting as propaganda, given how much he pushes so many bare-faced lies himself. But his is most certainly not unaware of the alternative truth to that being offered by his own circle.
But Putin's advisors presumably aren't pushing the version being fed to the Russian people through their media (essentially it's all going jolly well, modest losses, welcomed by the people etc).
The argument, presumably, is that they are sugar coating it. This might be along the lines that fighting has been fiercer than expected, progress has been slower than hoped, and there have been significant casualties - but morale is bearing up okay in the circumstances (thanks to your inspiring leadership, Mr President), supply lines are stretched but holding (i.e. we've not f***ed up in the way you might think, honest), and we've made important territorial gains that we are in a good position to hold and build from.
Those are sort of credible lies, consistent with Putin's probable view that the Western media is freer than his own but rather strongly biased. They are also dangerous lies as they cause Putin to overestimate his strength and think he has a stronger negotiating position than he does. That in turn makes a deal to end the slaughter harder to reach.
If so is that a plus or minus as far as French voters are concerned?
I don't know, but it feels as if his principal opponent Le Pen, is if anything more pro Putin, I haven't seen much about the other candidates position, but non appear to be going out of there way to look/sound more anti-Putin.
2019: Tory 2017: Tory 2015: Tory 2005: Tony 2001: Tony 1997: Tony 1992: Tory 1987: Tory 1983: Tory 1979: Tory 1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just. 1970: Tory 1966: Lab majority.
Off topic weather update. It's now started snowing heavily down here on the south coast. Mrs Al is in the loft retrieving winter coats that were put away last week. I'd warned her this was premature.
Accurate:
Been the mildest winter I can remember for sure.
I left an orange tree out by mistake all winter. It's fine.
They are in Partnership for Peace already and it's generally about ten years from PfP to membership. Unless you're Ukraine or Georgia then your application goes into the drawer labelled "LOL" on Avenue Leopold III.
Has anyone else encountered the phenomenon whereby people are ill, ‘pass’ several LFTs (i.e. the tests are negative), yet still assume - and say - they have covid?
I’ve encountered this several times in the last few weeks. The common cold has not disappeared - and can be unpleasant.
Why do people say it’s covid when the tests say otherwise?
I've fallen guilty to this myself a bit. I had a sore throat then minor cold symptom, productive cough for about 10 days. I tested negative, but only one test cos I couldn't be arsed. I wonder if it was covid? No proof BUT with the prevalence so high, there is a good chance it was. The lateral flows are not 100% for detecting and are subject to operator error.
Also - does it matter now? I think we will be getting new advice from tomorrow when free testing ends.
I think the free advice is "there is no more Covid so why test any more".
I've got the opposite problem - still testing positive with LFTs on day 7. Symptoms that I'd normally ignore come and go - minor sniffles and coughs, slightly disturbed sleep, an occasional shiver. Should I resume work (given it's all Teams/Zoom anyway)? I don't feel especially up to it, but we've all worked before many times when we were feeling a bit under par. I'm starting to feel guilty, though there's no very urgent work waiting (I'm keeping an eye on my work inbox). Is there any evidence that complete resting actually does any good in getting rid of it faster?
Yes Nick resume work. You have a sniffle and a cough it's ok you'll get through it. Did you have this internal angst when you have previously had colds or the flu?
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
Topping they do say the hospitals in Scotland are chocker with people with Covid. Had someone last week , their sister had heart attack and had to stay in ambulance more than 5 hours as no beds , place rammed.
Interesting thanks for that Malc - R4 had a piece on it (yday I think) where the "one person" stat was used.
Topping stats from yesterday , seems lot have it and lots in hospital but ICU quiet
PS: They did say they thought it was at or over the peak recently
Comments
The issue is that I treated what I thought was a cold as a cold, rather than as potential Covid. Which I regret on others' accounts. It didn't make any difference to me personally.
I think the opposite of the situation you posed in your original post.
2019: Tory
2017: Tory
2015: Tory
2005: Tony
2001: Tony
1997: Tony
1992: Tory
1987: Tory
1983: Tory
1979: Tory
1974, at second time of asking, a Lab PM, just.
1970: Tory
1966: Lab majority.
Most modern fascists will also protest their reasonableness and popularity.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20034276.dup-mp-ian-paisley-jr-brands-tories-english-nationalist-party-scathing-comments/
'In an interview with GB News to be broadcast on Thursday, DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr said although it was said his natural allies in Westminster should be the Tories, he found Labour gave Northern Ireland a “far better deal”.
Speaking to Gloria De Piero, Paisley said: “Yes, the Conservatives call themselves the Conservative and Unionist Party, but I believe that the Conservative Party today is becoming more and more an English nationalist party that doesn’t really understand what’s going on in Scotland, certainly in Northern Ireland, and in other regions.'
and
'Asked if he trusted Johnson to resolve the Northern Ireland Protocol wrangling, he said: “I don’t trust anyone in politics, I’ve become really sceptical, and I think that it’s foolish to put your trust in people. [...] But the idea that I’m trusting this particular politician, I think those days have long since gone.”
Boris Johnson should have known this (and maybe did) when he promised at PMQs to take action against the company https://twitter.com/itvjoel/status/1509197054320558080
Not sure how much more time Putin has in Moscow but Johnson will be out of office by summer 2024 too.
My guess is that of Jonathan's four suggestions the only one which may survive is Putin and even he is on shaky ground.
People are still dying of Covid and still getting very ill. But look at Scotland - mask restrictions to continue and one (1) person in intensive care and that was "with" Covid so we don't know if that's the primary reason.
I suggest that people have very sadly, tragically, literally been driven mad by the past two years. Of course a lot of that was down to the illness. But much has been the terror instilled in people of....."Covid"....
no surprise whatsoever to P&O's lawyers; and
a huge surprise to PB's lawyers.
Labour are trying to be all things to all women (however defined) and are failing. They will continue to do so.
The spectre of women with cocks is an added extra you get with some left-leaning governments. Amusing, but irritating to many more than you think (women, for instance).
Starmer made a good start, but he's a bit of a soft-shite. Boris is a lazy, clown, but hopefully, he'll become bored and swan off somewhere else. Angela should have taken the chance offered, but refused at the first real fence. "Let's not talk about it, please."
Andrew Burns QC - gave evidence to joint select committes on P&O
Some good legislative drafting right there.
In effect we had Blairism/Cameroonism from 1997 to 2016 (slightly diluted by Brownism from 2007 to 2010)
Which probably shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Sitting in his gold-plated office, Chechen dictator Ramzan Kadyrov publicly criticizes Russian head negotiator Vladimir Medinsky for supposedly being too accommodating to Ukraine. The cracks are starting to show.
https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1509212495029977089?s=20&t=cR1weMV7__Ywe8NZodhH0Q
Just this government has implemented Brexit and is more culturally conservative than New Labour and Cameron were
I wouldn't recommend any of his other novels, though. I've read (or tried to read) several, and whilst they have some interesting stuff in them, they don't quite work.
Edit: I can't quite remember it because I read it in my teens which is where I think the book is best aimed. But I do remember hugely enjoying it then.
I'm also not sure I'd call Ted Heath particularly Conservative.
Thus showing that at least for some things -
- sex trumps gender
- it was important to deny transgender people rights that they might otherwise acquire
- the rights of men born men trumped everything else if they were the sons of peers
All this pushed through by David Lammy. On behalf of the British aristocracy.
Labour: standing up for oppressed minorities.
Oh, the irony!
* for avoidance of doubt this is a joke based on Leon sweeping generalisations.
Edit also: the same would apply to the Royal Family. So Labour wouldn't want to rock that boat.
I found him a little frustrating. Too clever by half at times.
But it won't insult your intelligence. Quite the opposite.
Dan Brown he ain't.
He also wrote children's books. I haven't read any, but I would be intrigued.
Till May be out
[May = hawthorn blossom]
Financial links between Le Pen's National Rally and the Kremlin make Johnson and Trump look small-time.
Mark my words, you're better off betting on Le Pen seeing the inside of a prison cell on corruption charges than you are betting on her seeing the inside of the Élysée Palace's private quarters.
Yaroslav Yemelianenko said yesterday that 'another batch of Russians' had been taken to the 'Belarusian Radiation Medicine Center in Gomel' for treatment.
It comes after the nuclear power plant's workers said Russian soldiers' arrival at Chernobyl without anti-radiation gear when Moscow's forces seized the site last month was 'suicidal'.
Yemelianenko said the Kremlin's men had fallen ill because they failed to follow 'rules for dealing' with the Chernobyl nuclear plant and the surrounding highly toxic zone known as the Red Forest.
'With minimal intelligence in command or soldiers, these consequences could have been avoided,' he said, adding that radiation protection is 'mandatory because radiation is physics – it works without regard to status or shoulder straps.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10671373/Chernobyl-disaster-fears-Norway-tells-citizens-dust-Cold-War-bunkers.html
Personally, I think these reports are a load of guff. If one thing is for sure, it is that Putin himself is not blocked from watching Western media. All the top Iraqi leadership were hooked on CNN in 1991.
Now, he may discount Western reporting as propaganda, given how much he pushes so many bare-faced lies himself. But his is most certainly not unaware of the alternative truth to that being offered by his own circle.
Unless a physical sex change is on the critical path to the legal gender change you are always going to have male-bodied trans women and thus be faced with picking one of the following approaches:
(a) Trans women *are* women - so they can access women's spaces. The default is inclusion. Exceptions possible but must be justified.
(b) Trans women are *not* women - so they cannot access women's spaces. The default is exclusion. Exceptions possible but must be justified.
Forgetting about how we might disagree on what the answer should be, that's a correct framing, isn't it?
Common cold and influenza mutate too. We can monitor with scientific monitoring not every hypochondriac and their dog getting tested daily.
"Zero [grain] is currently being exported from the ports of Ukraine — nothing is leaving the country at all," Jörg-Simon Immerz, head of the grain trading at BayWa, told dpa news agency.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-war-russia-blocks-ships-carrying-grain-exports/a-61165985
Review / long read here: https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/secret-court-case-50-years-ago-robbed-transgender-people-rights-1291857
If so is that a plus or minus as far as French voters are concerned?
Because it looks a real stretch to me.
According to one account, they used explosive charges to break up the ground.
[Blackthorn is definitely in full flower here, it comes out before the leaves]
The argument, presumably, is that they are sugar coating it. This might be along the lines that fighting has been fiercer than expected, progress has been slower than hoped, and there have been significant casualties - but morale is bearing up okay in the circumstances (thanks to your inspiring leadership, Mr President), supply lines are stretched but holding (i.e. we've not f***ed up in the way you might think, honest), and we've made important territorial gains that we are in a good position to hold and build from.
Those are sort of credible lies, consistent with Putin's probable view that the Western media is freer than his own but rather strongly biased. They are also dangerous lies as they cause Putin to overestimate his strength and think he has a stronger negotiating position than he does. That in turn makes a deal to end the slaughter harder to reach.
PS: They did say they thought it was at or over the peak recently