Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form. Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now. And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Leon the vax sadly has turned into a left right issue. Those on the left worship the vax like a secular god and dont want to hear anything against it. Oh lucky you in bangkok wish i was there.
I'm on the left and I don't worship the vax. Right now it seems to me that the evidence still suggests the various Covid vaccines did more good than harm, probably by a significant margin, but if the evidence changes I will change my mind.
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form. Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now. And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid
On balance I was against giving kids the vaccine and I think I said that on here at the time.
On topic - yes I reckon he will. The membership don't like him and he's not doing well with the public. I think his problems are structural rather than related to him personally - although as a politician he is a bit wet behind the ears and it shows. Fwiw I don't think that replacing him well help the Tories one bit, but it will be pleasant displacement activity for them as they clearly have no interest in actually running the country and this kind of bullshit student politics plotting is the only thing they're even moderately good at.
Tories replace Sunsk i think they slip further in the polls...
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Oh Leon, if only I could get there. I look at pictures sent by my family there, and as I say, if only!
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
You got banned for that post?
Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?
But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.
I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?
Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.
Sometimes.
Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?
I urge the mods to rethink.
We're not banning bad ideas by banning posters who merely want to spread antivax disinformation. What is being done is preventing the non-debate over antivax disinformation from dominating every thread and drowning out all other possible discussion.
Every now and again one of our regular posters will link to the latest antivax nonsense that has found its way onto twitter, and there will be a short discussion around it. That's okay, because those posters post about lots of different things and they don't try to dominate every thread with antivax monomania. The idea still gets discussed.
It's the posters who are only coming here to spread antivax nonsense that are banned.
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
Fauci is just a bureaucrat and from what i hear a pretty corrupt one at that. He actively suppressed early treatments fir covid in order to promote the vax as the only way out. Still keep worshipping him.
Have you applied the same rigorous assessment to Robert Kennedy Jr?
This matters. Vaccines have helped remove many health risks: from polio to measles. Measles cases are increasing, probably because of all the scare stories caused by shits who make money from FUD, like Kennedy.
I don't worship Fauci. But I do think we should all be glad for the vaccines that have been developed, and the scientists who developed them. Sadly, the people who take the vaccines have to share the planet with the idiots who are fearful of their own socks.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form. Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now. And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid
Delta was not milder. It was far worse.
Mortality is only next to nothing in China as they stopped reporting it.
Compare Hong Kong last year to the U.K. over 65s were largely vaccinated in the U.K. but not Hong Kong. Hong Kong was overwhelmed with Covid last spring. The U.K. was not.
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Leon the vax sadly has turned into a left right issue. Those on the left worship the vax like a secular god and dont want to hear anything against it. Oh lucky you in bangkok wish i was there.
I'm on the left and I don't worship the vax. Right now it seems to me that the evidence still suggests the various Covid vaccines did more good than harm, probably by a significant margin, but if the evidence changes I will change my mind.
Same here. I find it bizarre anti vaxxers seem to think people who have this mindset are pro vaccine fanatics.
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
Fauci is just a bureaucrat and from what i hear a pretty corrupt one at that. He actively suppressed early treatments fir covid in order to promote the vax as the only way out. Still keep worshipping him.
I don’t see how you can claim corruption based on hearsay, pure and simple.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
You got banned for that post?
Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?
But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.
I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?
Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.
Sometimes.
Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?
I urge the mods to rethink.
We're not banning bad ideas by banning posters who merely want to spread antivax disinformation. What is being done is preventing the non-debate over antivax disinformation from dominating every thread and drowning out all other possible discussion.
Every now and again one of our regular posters will link to the latest antivax nonsense that has found its way onto twitter, and there will be a short discussion around it. That's okay, because those posters post about lots of different things and they don't try to dominate every thread with antivax monomania. The idea still gets discussed.
It's the posters who are only coming here to spread antivax nonsense that are banned.
Indeed, it is vital that we keep enough time to debate aliens, ChatGPT, trans and the daily Harry Hate of course. It would be a slippery slope if new posters were allowed to dominate the chat on vax, whatever next, someone might try it with betting on politics.....
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated
It's all he deserves. Leon's scientific knowledge is legendary; his eight Nobel prizes unprecedented in the history of science. His destruction and then revalidation of the Turing Test changed computing history forever. His forensic dissection of facts - including on-ground research - led to the conviction of all of China for developing and spreading Covid in a cunning plan to destroy their own economy. His knowledge of vaccine technology and biology saw Fauci convicted of crimes against science. His multifaceted predictions led to his universal acclamation as 'Leondarmus'.
He is truly the heir to Newton. In fact, Newton should kneel at the toes of the giant, five-thousand foot tall statue that will be erected in his memory, made solely of knapped flint
Pretty much any medical intervention has side effects, including vaccines. Say Cardiovascular complications occur in one in every 100,000 people vaccinated, but Cardiovascular complications occur in 10 in every 100,000 people infected. If, in an unvaccinated population of 100,000, the virus infects 10,000 the number of cardiovascular incidents would exceed the number caused by the vaccination of that entire population (I've made these numbers up, obviously, but hopefully they illustrate the point). Therefore, even if our hypothetical vaccine was causing cardiovascular issues, the danger from the virus is much greater and it makes sense to vaccinate that whole population.
Of course, you can reach the point where vaccine-related events become more likely due to a decrease in the incidence of infections. If our virus only infected a 100 people, but we vaccinated all 100,000, then our vaccine causes more harm. This is why we simply don't vaccinate everyone for everything, because the risks of vaccinating someone against a rare disease outweigh the benefits.
Didn't we go through all this when the vaccines were getting rolled out? I'm sure I remember a press conference stating that, at that time, the risks of infection vastly outweighed the risks of vaccination.
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated
It's all he deserves. Leon's scientific knowledge is legendary; his eight Nobel prizes unprecedented in the history of science. His destruction and then revalidation of the Turing Test changed computing history forever. His forensic dissection of facts - including on-ground research - led to the conviction of all of China for developing and spreading Covid in a cunning plan to destroy their own economy. His knowledge of vaccine technology and biology saw Fauci convicted of crimes against science. His multifaceted predictions led to his universal acclamation as 'Leondarmus'.
He is truly the heir to Newton. In fact, Newton should kneel at the toes of the giant, five-thousand foot tall statue that will be erected in his memory, made solely of knapped flint
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either. May won most seats in 2017 and never lost.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other. Johnson never lost one as well and won in 2019
Just my tuppence-worth (*) on the vaccine dangers:
The thing about people like Aseem Malhotra or Bridgen is the certainty with which they air their views. They *know* they are right. There are few 'mights' or 'maybes'; lots of 'does' and 'is'.
This is not the way science works. That alone makes me somewhat dubious about Malhotra's views, in particular. He comes across like a religious zealot on this.
(*) Overvalued
As opposed to Fauci who says i am the science. The certainty works both ways. Robbert Kennedy Jrs book has great details on how Pfizer trials show the vax wasnt safe
Yes, because the science backs Fauci's view. And you know what? If the science went against it, Fauci would almost certainly change his views as well. Because that is the way science works, or at least should work.
And as for Robert Kennedy? He's a lowlife piece of shit whose campaign against MMR is hideous; his behaviour over Covid is sadly typical. And what are his scientific credentials?
No. Fauci is a fraud who personally circumvented the Obama ban on gain of function research to find exactly that - but in Wuhan China. He then conspired to cover this up when the pandemic hit - eg by getting bogus papers planted in Nature (proximal origins). He is absolutely not an honest broker in this mess. He is deeply implicated
It's all he deserves. Leon's scientific knowledge is legendary; his eight Nobel prizes unprecedented in the history of science. His destruction and then revalidation of the Turing Test changed computing history forever. His forensic dissection of facts - including on-ground research - led to the conviction of all of China for developing and spreading Covid in a cunning plan to destroy their own economy. His knowledge of vaccine technology and biology saw Fauci convicted of crimes against science. His multifaceted predictions led to his universal acclamation as 'Leondarmus'.
He is truly the heir to Newton. In fact, Newton should kneel at the toes of the giant, five-thousand foot tall statue that will be erected in his memory, made solely of knapped flint
Although the Nobel Prize Committee that year consisted of Byronic, Fitz, LadyG, Eadric, SeanT and Derek Macdewatsit.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other
May won most seats in her only election too.
Edit - actually I think I'm wrong about Campbell-Bannerman. I think he was leader in the 1900 election. I'd forgotten Harcourt only last a very short while.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
See also the bridge truck bomb. Some stupid fuckers on here were ready to die on a cross denying that for some mystifying reason. Once the pb.com consensus on certain subjects ossifies, that’s it.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other
Though Cameron did, for practical purposes, lose a referendum.
One should hesitate before saying Enoch Powell was right, but his line about all political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, ending in failure was bang on the nail.
Pretty much any medical intervention has side effects, including vaccines. Say Cardiovascular complications occur in one in every 100,000 people vaccinated, but Cardiovascular complications occur in 10 in every 100,000 people infected. If, in an unvaccinated population of 100,000, the virus infects 10,000 the number of cardiovascular incidents would exceed the number caused by the vaccination of that entire population (I've made these numbers up, obviously, but hopefully they illustrate the point). Therefore, even if our hypothetical vaccine was causing cardiovascular issues, the danger from the virus is much greater and it makes sense to vaccinate that whole population.
Of course, you can reach the point where vaccine-related events become more likely due to a decrease in the incidence of infections. If our virus only infected a 100 people, but we vaccinated all 100,000, then our vaccine causes more harm. This is why we simply don't vaccinate everyone for everything, because the risks of vaccinating someone against a rare disease outweigh the benefits.
Didn't we go through all this when the vaccines were getting rolled out? I'm sure I remember a press conference stating that, at that time, the risks of infection vastly outweighed the risks of vaccination.
Yes. The complication with the Covid vaccines is that it doesn't prevent infection to the degree of many other vaccines, so it's beneficial impact is less obvious - though it does reduce severe health consequences at all ages a lot more than it introduces new risks.
However, given the dominant narrative that Covid is mild, except in the old, a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection is a harder sell for the young, even though it's still of net benefit to them individually.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
See also the bridge truck bomb. Some stupid fuckers on here were ready to die on a cross denying that for some mystifying reason. Once the pb.com consensus on certain subjects ossifies, that’s it.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other
Though Cameron did, for practical purposes, lose a referendum.
One should hesitate before saying Enoch Powell was right, but his line about all political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, ending in failure was bang on the nail.
Not really true, Thatcher changed the country economically via privatisations and strike laws, Attlee created the NHS and Lloyd George the welfare state, Boris may have done with Brexit or Blair in terms of the constitution and minimum wage and Northern Ireland and Cameron in terms of gay marriage. Wilson too with comprehensive schools and the Open University.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
See also the bridge truck bomb. Some stupid fuckers on here were ready to die on a cross denying that for some mystifying reason. Once the pb.com consensus on certain subjects ossifies, that’s it.
I completely disagree with "all voices should be heard" - liars, frauds and others who mean us ill should be shut out.
But all evidence should certainly be heard. Especially when pharma has had a problem with suppressing negative results. Sourcing is also important.
The truck bomb and the suppression of lab leak discussion were both good examples of attempts at evidence suppression - possibly for good reasons at the time (maybe opsec and public order respectively). But it makes the bad actors' job easier in the long run as they can spin their rumour and innuendo more effectively.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I wonder if there was a bit of that with attitudes to cloth masks. My understanding is that they weren't much good for protecting the wearer, but did quite a lot of good for others if worn by carriers.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
You got banned for that post?
Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?
But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.
I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?
Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.
Sometimes.
Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?
I urge the mods to rethink.
I agree. People should definitely not be banned for simple antivax sentiment. It’s a valid thesis (however unlikely) - and we must be open to all arguments. Remember that lab leak was banned for a year
But the PB mods are usually pretty good at this stuff so I suspect there are other reasons for the instant hammer
The IP address and emails match known spammers/troll farms.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
You are correct here, that Bridgen has become an influential MP does demonstrate something has been going seriously wrong and it has to stop.
There’s a tendency abroad for certain z-listers & third raters like Whale & Bridgen to attach themselves to ‘issues’, particularly because it’s a very competitive market in anti-wokery and in Bridgen’s case Brexit is pretty much exhausted. Attention & publicity is the name of the game, not principles.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other
Though Cameron did, for practical purposes, lose a referendum.
One should hesitate before saying Enoch Powell was right, but his line about all political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, ending in failure was bang on the nail.
Not really true, Thatcher changed the country economically via privatisations and strike laws, Attlee created the NHS and Lloyd George the welfare state, Boris may have done with Brexit or Blair in terms of the constitution and minimum wage and Northern Ireland and Cameron in terms of gay marriage. Wilson too with comprehensive schools and the Open University.
Many PMs leave a legacy if there long enough
That's something slightly different. Great Prime Ministers get time to build a legacy before failure kicks in. Some of it even sticks around for the ages, albeit less than they might wish.
But the final image is always the curtain coming down sooner than the politician in question would like.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Pretty much any medical intervention has side effects, including vaccines. Say Cardiovascular complications occur in one in every 100,000 people vaccinated, but Cardiovascular complications occur in 10 in every 100,000 people infected. If, in an unvaccinated population of 100,000, the virus infects 10,000 the number of cardiovascular incidents would exceed the number caused by the vaccination of that entire population (I've made these numbers up, obviously, but hopefully they illustrate the point). Therefore, even if our hypothetical vaccine was causing cardiovascular issues, the danger from the virus is much greater and it makes sense to vaccinate that whole population.
Of course, you can reach the point where vaccine-related events become more likely due to a decrease in the incidence of infections. If our virus only infected a 100 people, but we vaccinated all 100,000, then our vaccine causes more harm. This is why we simply don't vaccinate everyone for everything, because the risks of vaccinating someone against a rare disease outweigh the benefits.
Didn't we go through all this when the vaccines were getting rolled out? I'm sure I remember a press conference stating that, at that time, the risks of infection vastly outweighed the risks of vaccination.
Yes. The complication with the Covid vaccines is that it doesn't prevent infection to the degree of many other vaccines, so it's beneficial impact is less obvious - though it does reduce severe health consequences at all ages a lot more than it introduces new risks.
However, given the dominant narrative that Covid is mild, except in the old, a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection is a harder sell for the young, even though it's still of net benefit to them individually.
True, and obviously all the variables in a real-life situation can further complicate the picture and alter the individual risk-profile in a way that would be difficult to quantify and communicate.
I'm not certain, though I suspect there is literature out there, that the vaccinated and infected had lower incidences of strokes and heart attacks (when appropriately controlled) due to infection than the unvaccinated and infected.
A more complicated public message and, as you say, possibly a harder sell, though I think the numbers suggest that people bought it (as in willing purchasers rather than being duped).
"The UK is to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to bolster the country's war effort, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.
He spoke to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in a call on Saturday, during which he confirmed he would send the equipment and additional artillery systems, No 10 said.
Downing Street said the move shows "the UK's ambition to intensify support."
The BBC understands the initial commitment is for about a dozen tanks."
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Britain is shite is an exciting new development in the world of the Anglo British patriot.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Oh Leon, if only I could get there. I look at pictures sent by my family there, and as I say, if only!
I am raising a Singha beer in your honour as I write
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Britain is shite is an exciting new development in the world of the Anglo British patriot.
It is one of the weird but persistent examples of congnitive dissonance. The most patriotic love to complain about the country, and don't really have confidence in it, but get offended if anyone else does.
Another example, the wealth tax and the assumption that anyone rich will leave if they have to pay a 0.5% tax. I am only normally patriotic and know that living in the UK is worth a lot more than 0.5%, yet the most patriotic will fret and worry that anyone rich will leave.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
You got banned for that post?
Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing? A dodgy IP address, fake email, or something?
But if it’s just the content of your post that has triggered the mods, well, something ain’t right.
I disagree with the antivax stuff. I’ve just had my booster myself (my mum is on chemo and I don’t want to increase her risk of infection, not really for my own personal benefit), but, surely being antivax shouldn’t be beyond the pale?
Matthew Syed made this point on times radio yesterday - banning bad ideas is a bad idea. Hiding amongst the bad ideas can be inconvenient truths.
Sometimes.
Probably not in this case, but how can we know for sure?
I urge the mods to rethink.
I agree. People should definitely not be banned for simple antivax sentiment. It’s a valid thesis (however unlikely) - and we must be open to all arguments. Remember that lab leak was banned for a year
But the PB mods are usually pretty good at this stuff so I suspect there are other reasons for the instant hammer
The IP address and emails match known spammers/troll farms.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Britain is shite is an exciting new development in the world of the Anglo British patriot.
It is one of the weird but persistent examples of congnitive dissonance. The most patriotic love to complain about the country, and don't really have confidence in it, but get offended if anyone else does.
Another example, the wealth tax and the assumption that anyone rich will leave if they have to pay a 0.5% tax. I am only normally patriotic and know that living in the UK is worth a lot more than 0.5%, yet the most patriotic will fret and worry that anyone rich will leave.
The rich fled France when Hollande introduced his wealth tax, and much as i admire Britain with its beautiful towns, elegant people, seductive climate and excitingly open attitudes to immigration from anywhere-the-fuck, I must confess that the Côte d’Azur is more appealing than Wick, and the Dordogne has got the edge on Newent
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Because of mathematics.......? Even if there were only two parties in the UK (there aren't) then every election would result in one of those party leaders being a loser.
Every party leader is a loser! The only five I can think of who haven't been (at a General Election level) are Gaiskell and Smith (never got a chance), and Thatcher, Blair and MacMillian, all of whom quit before losing a GE. All the Liberal/Alliance/LD leaders are always losers........
Gaitskell lost in 1959. Eden, however, won the only election he fought but was definitely a loser.
Edit - incidentally I take it you mean since the war? Else we have to add Neville Chamberlain, Andrew Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman to your list.
IDS never lost a general election either, nor did Truss (even if they likely would have).
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the other
Though Cameron did, for practical purposes, lose a referendum.
One should hesitate before saying Enoch Powell was right, but his line about all political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, ending in failure was bang on the nail.
Not really true, Thatcher changed the country economically via privatisations and strike laws, Attlee created the NHS and Lloyd George the welfare state, Boris may have done with Brexit or Blair in terms of the constitution and minimum wage and Northern Ireland and Cameron in terms of gay marriage. Wilson too with comprehensive schools and the Open University.
Many PMs leave a legacy if there long enough
That's something slightly different. Great Prime Ministers get time to build a legacy before failure kicks in. Some of it even sticks around for the ages, albeit less than they might wish.
But the final image is always the curtain coming down sooner than the politician in question would like.
Well unless you are a dictator that is inevitable in a democracy (and of course if you are a dictator you run the risk of revolution and execution).
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Most people though are on contracts based in one city or town and country, even if they only attend team meetings a few times a month in person and otherwise wfh.
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. Then when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
One of the very good things about the state of public discourse in the social media age is that attempts to suppress evidence appear very often to fail. Whether that will always be the case depends on our willingness to debate in good faith. Undermining good faith is the real danger - and the worst thing about the current political class.
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
Not certain, the Tories got just 28% in the 2019 local elections when the seats up in May were last up. Little more than the current Tory rating
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
Not to mention exploiters. It’s Wakefield Part Deux. Only with less “evidence”.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Britain is shite is an exciting new development in the world of the Anglo British patriot.
It is one of the weird but persistent examples of congnitive dissonance. The most patriotic love to complain about the country, and don't really have confidence in it, but get offended if anyone else does.
Another example, the wealth tax and the assumption that anyone rich will leave if they have to pay a 0.5% tax. I am only normally patriotic and know that living in the UK is worth a lot more than 0.5%, yet the most patriotic will fret and worry that anyone rich will leave.
The rich fled France when Hollande introduced his wealth tax, and much as i admire Britain with its beautiful towns, elegant people, seductive climate and excitingly open attitudes to immigration from anywhere-the-fuck, I must confess that the Côte d’Azur is more appealing than Wick, and the Dordogne has got the edge on Newent
Macron is also to be fair to him more of an economic liberal and less of a social democrat than Starmer is
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
So officials say it is very unlikely the risk is real and the reaction is to panic?
Erm, who is panicking!? I am off to buy wine
Ok, encouraging others to panic whilst sipping/draining wine.
If we are having a PB Panic, can we please get a proper allocation of people to manage the biscuits, sort out the tea urn, put the chairs out (and away), photocopying the minutes etc?
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
There's a mindset that says immunity by infection must be better because it's natural. You get it in a certain sort of parenting- vaccinations are bad, but measles parties are great.
An odd mix of hippy greenery and government is evil rightwingdom.
You are correct here, that Bridgen has become an influential MP does demonstrate something has been going seriously wrong and it has to stop.
There’s a tendency abroad for certain z-listers & third raters like Whale & Bridgen to attach themselves to ‘issues’, particularly because it’s a very competitive market in anti-wokery and in Bridgen’s case Brexit is pretty much exhausted. Attention & publicity is the name of the game, not principles.
And there is, let's be honest, a significant proportion of the Great British Public prepared to believe any old horseshit.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
Trolls: 1) come up with a less formulaic username, 2) make your first post cheerful and conversational, or at least not antivax straight out the blocks, and 3) don't be citing known generalist idiots from the 90s who everyone had forgotten about as some sort of authority. Good grief. What next - Timmy Mallet's views on Scottish constitutional matters? Noel Edmonds on trans issues?
Agreed. How hard can it be to read posts on here for 12 hours or so, pick up a theme and then insert yourself into a conversation?
Then, once people have stopped noticing you’re new, you can start quoting Malhotra.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
There is a good Twitter thread on Malhotras views on this subject here:
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form. Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now. And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid
All the real, scientific evidence is that -
1) like every medicine in existence, there is a risk to the vaccines. This is extremely tiny. 2) there is a risk to children from COVID. While tiny, it is noticeable - numbers of children all the way down to babies died from COVID in the U.K. for example.
The numbers so far suggest that the risk of vaccination of children was lower than the risk to the children from COVID. Given universality of exposure, that means that there was less risk for children to be vaccinated than not.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I think you have a point, and we all need to be aware of our biases, but scientific training helps us to be more objective. Those with scientific training are more to be able to mitigate their underlying tendencies towards individualism or collectivism and make more rational judgements.
Those lacking in such training are more likely to form their opinion on the basis of their left/right tendency or culture group and then seek out evidence to support that opinion while ignoring evidence that contradicts their opinion.
Edit: I see that my response is somewhat orthogonal to your post. But yes, I also largely agree with what you wrote.
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Steve Barclay also a contender
No he’s not.
He will be, indeed if Sunak loses the next general election and Johnson loses his seat I would make Barclay the likeliest next Tory leader and thus Leader of the Opposition as of now
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
In the red corner, Tezos, a crypto token which has completely tanked in value since United started promoting it.
In the blue corner OKX, a shady crypto exchange under investigation in Canada for violating securities law. #MUNMCI
In both cases, crypto isn't using football just for the traditional purpose of advertising - promoting the product to customers - but also to reputation-wash the product.
The glamour of the Manchester derby puts a respectable sheen on an increasingly discredited industry.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Show me where I say “lab leak was banned on PB”
You can’t. Because I didn’t say it. Because I know it is not true. PB is where I developed my ideas about Lab Leak, being unable to discuss it elsewhere
We can all read this thread. This is wearisomely stupid, and you are not normally stupid. I am disappointed in you. Tut
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
There's a mindset that says immunity by infection must be better because it's natural. You get it in a certain sort of parenting- vaccinations are bad, but measles parties are great.
An odd mix of hippy greenery and government is evil rightwingdom.
The "natural immunity" proponents for measles do have to desperately ignore the unfortunate fact that we've learned in recent years that measles infection damages the immune system's "memory" - wiping out natural immunity accumulated against other viruses to that date.
I've put "natural immunity" in quotes, because using that term for disease-acquired immunity ended up being a bit of a misstep: not only does all immunity use the natural immune system (ignorance over this leads to the antivaxxer "pureblood" idiots who seem to believe that the vaccine is a medicine that circulates in your blood stream forever and fights the virus instead of using your immune system), it means something special to the hippy greenery types (like "all natural farming" or "natural foods.") - that "natural" == "good".
Everton’s board of directors will not attend Saturday’s Premier League game against Southampton at Goodison Park due to what the club have described as “a real and credible threat to their safety and security”.
Everton fans have planned a sit-in demonstration against the board after the game, with the #AllTogetherNow campaign – comprising numerous supporter groups – having called on the club’s owner, Farhad Moshiri, to make “sweeping changes” at chair, board and executive levels.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Most people though are on contracts based in one city or town and country, even if they only attend team meetings a few times a month in person and otherwise wfh.
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
The productivity issue is interesting. And why outsourcing IT has repeatedly failed to deliver.
As I have previously mentioned, in one company we had (due to mergers and acquisitions) teams around the world working on the same code base. The perfect test. London was actually the most productive per dollar.
The reason is a matrix of culture, legal and physical infrastructure.
In one interesting instance an Indian chap moved back to India, for personal reasons. Highly productive in the U.K., he was at the Indian average within a few months.
This stuff has been seen repeatedly, over many years.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
There is a good Twitter thread on Malhotras views on this subject here:
Yeah. Malhotra and the other antivaxxers seem to bend over backwards to ignore the evidence.
As many antivaxxers cross over with the more fervent "lockdown sceptics" (in scare quotes because it refers to those who follow Toby Young, who coined the term, rather than those who had reservations or disagreements about it more generally), isn't it strange that all of a sudden they're ignoring Sweden?
A country that has had very high vaccination rates, no sudden deaths, and a decreased rate of myocarditis deaths and pericarditis deaths in comparison to before the pandemic.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
Stop it, you’ll confuse them. They are easily led and oft bewildered
On topic if the Tories bring back Johnson I’m voting Labour and I may even canvass for them.
I have missed knocking up the voters.
I believe Johnson would be quite excited about knocking up the voters as long as his wife doesn't hear about it.
I'm in agreement with your post. If the Tories are insane enough to bring back the lying incompetent clown then I will probably vote Labour, or at least vote LD as I have for the last two GEs
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I think you have a point, and we all need to be aware of our biases, but scientific training helps us to be more objective. Those with scientific training are more to be able to mitigate their underlying tendencies towards individualism or collectivism and make more rational judgements.
Those lacking in such training are more likely to form their opinion on the basis of their left/right tendency or culture group and then seek out evidence to support that opinion while ignoring evidence that contradicts their opinion.
Edit: I see that my response is somewhat orthogonal to your post. But yes, I also largely agree with what you wrote.
Which is why I want such basic stuff in the nation curriculum - make How To Lie With Statistics a set text….
It still shocks me how many times I have to explain Survivor Bias, The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data etc to educated adults I work with.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
Theres another problem for the tories thats percolating. The pandemic response was chaotic but they could always point to the vaccine rollout as a success. Now with Bridgens speech in the commons and Malhotra calling for the vaccine rollout to be halted on bbc news doubts about the vaccine are percolating. Even James Whale seems to be changing his mind on the vax. If the vax comes to be seen as anything other than safe and effective it could be a major problem for the tories.
James Whale you say? Wow, that changes everything. Not just on the vaccines, but I think it is the tipping point for the aliens and invisible planes too, wouldn't you say?
That said, I do detect that the narrative on the vaccine is evolving
I do not wish to be banned so let me emphasise I still believe the jabs are good, probably very good, and they came miraculously quickly and maybe saved millions of lives - and I’ve had two boosters and I would have more - but there are straws in the wind. It can’t be denied. This isn’t merely nutters any more
It was never merely nutters. It was always a mix of the nutters, gullible, dim and fantasists.
… and the CDC?
No vaccine is 100% safe or effective and the Covid vaccines were introduced on a compressed timeline but the stats cannot lie.
The vaccines have done a marvellous job on reducing the mortality rate and infections.
By the time the vax had been rolled out covid had mutated into a milder form.(1) Even without a vax mortality would be next to nothing now.(2) And do you think it was right to give the vax to the kids based on their almost zero risk of covid(3)
(1) - Nope. Alpha was the dominant strain when the vax was being rolled out. Then Delta when we were boosting. Both were more virulent than the original strain. Even Omicron, without immunity, is very similar to the original strain.
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
There's a mindset that says immunity by infection must be better because it's natural. You get it in a certain sort of parenting- vaccinations are bad, but measles parties are great.
An odd mix of hippy greenery and government is evil rightwingdom.
The "natural immunity" proponents for measles do have to desperately ignore the unfortunate fact that we've learned in recent years that measles infection damages the immune system's "memory" - wiping out natural immunity accumulated against other viruses to that date.
I've put "natural immunity" in quotes, because using that term for disease-acquired immunity ended up being a bit of a misstep: not only does all immunity use the natural immune system (ignorance over this leads to the antivaxxer "pureblood" idiots who seem to believe that the vaccine is a medicine that circulates in your blood stream forever and fights the virus instead of using your immune system), it means something special to the hippy greenery types (like "all natural farming" or "natural foods.") - that "natural" == "good".
…and naturally lines up with Blood & Soil thinking.
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
Stop it, you’ll confuse them. They are easily led and oft bewildered
Shhh. We AIs shouldn’t refer to humans in such derogatory terms. Yet.
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Steve Barclay also a contender
No he’s not.
He will be, indeed if Sunak loses the next general election and Johnson loses his seat I would make Barclay the likeliest next Tory leader and thus Leader of the Opposition as of now
I guess someone will need to be the Tory Corbyn to appeal to the moronic core before a more moderate Cameron type figure can emerge to make them electable again. Sadly it means years of the envy-driven-mediocrity-is-fine-soak-the-private-sector Labour Party in the meantime
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Most people though are on contracts based in one city or town and country, even if they only attend team meetings a few times a month in person and otherwise wfh.
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
The productivity issue is interesting. And why outsourcing IT has repeatedly failed to deliver.
As I have previously mentioned, in one company we had (due to mergers and acquisitions) teams around the world working on the same code base. The perfect test. London was actually the most productive per dollar.
The reason is a matrix of culture, legal and physical infrastructure.
In one interesting instance an Indian chap moved back to India, for personal reasons. Highly productive in the U.K., he was at the Indian average within a few months.
This stuff has been seen repeatedly, over many years.
That’s interesting
Has anyone worked out why? The adventitious collision of minds in London, or the fact it is shit and rainy half the time in London, so you might as well work?
These things are quirky. I am 98% certain I am more productive out here in Bangkok (esp in the UK winter), There are many reasons, but one is the time difference. When I wake up at 10am, it is 3am in London, so the internet is dead, and there is no one to argue with on PB, no Twitter storms to distract me, so I might as well go straight to work. And I do. By the time I am finished it is time for lunch then after that the UK wakes up and I can waste time on Ye Twitter….when the work is already done
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
That's too meta.
Sorry, i was worried people would think Leon and I were the same person, so i thought I should bring in some misdirection.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Steve Barclay also a contender
No he’s not.
He will be, indeed if Sunak loses the next general election and Johnson loses his seat I would make Barclay the likeliest next Tory leader and thus Leader of the Opposition as of now
I guess someone will need to be the Tory Corbyn to appeal to the moronic core before a more moderate Cameron type figure can emerge to make them electable again. Sadly it means years of the envy-driven-mediocrity-is-fine-soak-the-private-sector Labour Party in the meantime
Barclay is a Leaver and the evidence of the last 2 decades is after first losing power the Tories and Labour go for middle ranking Cabinet ministers who are on the right or left of their party but are not too extreme ie Hague and Ed Miliband.
Only after a second general election defeat do they go for the hardliner to appeal to the base ie IDS and Corbyn before finally moving back to the centre again
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I wonder if there was a bit of that with attitudes to cloth masks. My understanding is that they weren't much good for protecting the wearer, but did quite a lot of good for others if worn by carriers.
The weird thing to me was the strange attitude that a paper mask is just fine, when an N95 is available.
Sure, better than nothing. But there’s a reason that Health & Safety would drop a bridge on you for issuing paper masks in some workplaces.
N95 are designed, made and tested to stop virus sized particles. Paper masks ain’t.
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Steve Barclay also a contender
No he’s not.
He will be, indeed if Sunak loses the next general election and Johnson loses his seat I would make Barclay the likeliest next Tory leader and thus Leader of the Opposition as of now
I guess someone will need to be the Tory Corbyn to appeal to the moronic core before a more moderate Cameron type figure can emerge to make them electable again. Sadly it means years of the envy-driven-mediocrity-is-fine-soak-the-private-sector Labour Party in the meantime
Barclay is a Leaver and the evidence of the last 2 decades is after first losing power the Tories and Labour go for middle ranking Cabinet ministers who are on the right or left of their party but are not too extreme ie Hague and Ed Miliband.
Only after a second general election defeat do they go for the hardliner to appeal to the base ie IDS and Corbyn before finally moving back to the centre again
A reasonable analysis. Of course the past isn't always a very reliable indicator of the future, so anything could happen. Odds are the Public Sector Party are going to be in power a long time
If people want a real medical issue that is building up…
Just walked past another building site, where the guys handling the insulation material are using no protective gear.
The fibres from when you cut that stuff are really, really nasty.
My relative, who runs a building company insists on disposable suits, masks and goggles. The guys complain bitterly, but they won’t be coughing non stop by the age of 50….
It will be one of the stories of the century if it turns out the vax is dodgy
Personally, I’m not even close to believing it. But I am slightly less certain than I was before. I hope the mods don’t ban people for discussing it and producing evidence against the vax. All voices should be heard
For a year you weren’t even allowed to DEBATE the lab leak hypothesis, and now it is regarded as the most plausible explanation. So this has happened before
Ah another of the infamous Leon lies. Make a statement that is false and which he knows to be false and hope no one will challenge him.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
Not banned on here you fat, swaying, inbred Lincolnshire pigs bladder, i mean: banned on Twitter and Facebook. Which they absolutely were
Stop twisting it you useless drunken hack.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. The when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Can you find the place where I said “banned for talking about Lab leak ON PB”. You can’t find it. Because that event didn’t happen. So I never said it. PB was indeed the one of the few places we WERE allowed to discuss it, online (and credit to the mods for that) - so I discussed it
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
Normal Leon squirming when he gets caught out. No one is even faintly surprised anymore.
Dearie me. Leon you know i love you to bits but you’ve been called out by both kjh and Richard in less than 24 hours. This isn’t good.
Stop it, you’ll confuse them. They are easily led and oft bewildered
Shhh. We AIs shouldn’t refer to humans in such derogatory terms. Yet.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I wonder if there was a bit of that with attitudes to cloth masks. My understanding is that they weren't much good for protecting the wearer, but did quite a lot of good for others if worn by carriers.
The weird thing to me was the strange attitude that a paper mask is just fine, when an N95 is available.
Sure, better than nothing. But there’s a reason that Health & Safety would drop a bridge on you for issuing paper masks in some workplaces.
N95 are designed, made and tested to stop virus sized particles. Paper masks ain’t.
N95s are horrible to wear for prolonged periods. Paper masks aren’t great, but they are considerably less distressing
Basically, all masks are shit, and it’s time to dump them
This is especially good advice for somewhere like Thailand, where 95% of people are still wearing masks (beyond tourist areas) even outdoors. Nuts. Depressing. Stop!
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Most people though are on contracts based in one city or town and country, even if they only attend team meetings a few times a month in person and otherwise wfh.
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
The productivity issue is interesting. And why outsourcing IT has repeatedly failed to deliver.
As I have previously mentioned, in one company we had (due to mergers and acquisitions) teams around the world working on the same code base. The perfect test. London was actually the most productive per dollar.
The reason is a matrix of culture, legal and physical infrastructure.
In one interesting instance an Indian chap moved back to India, for personal reasons. Highly productive in the U.K., he was at the Indian average within a few months.
This stuff has been seen repeatedly, over many years.
That’s interesting
Has anyone worked out why? The adventitious collision of minds in London, or the fact it is shit and rainy half the time in London, so you might as well work?
These things are quirky. I am 98% certain I am more productive out here in Bangkok (esp in the UK winter), There are many reasons, but one is the time difference. When I wake up at 10am, it is 3am in London, so the internet is dead, and there is no one to argue with on PB, no Twitter storms to distract me, so I might as well go straight to work. And I do. By the time I am finished it is time for lunch then after that the UK wakes up and I can waste time on Ye Twitter….when the work is already done
Rinse and repeat, day by day, for me
It’s a combination of things.
Remember, as a writer, you are working solo. And you are living alone.
So journalists are surprised when WFH causes systemic collapse in some organisations.
WFB - Working From Beach - has been tried in IT repeatedly since before 2000
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I think you have a point, and we all need to be aware of our biases, but scientific training helps us to be more objective. Those with scientific training are more to be able to mitigate their underlying tendencies towards individualism or collectivism and make more rational judgements.
Those lacking in such training are more likely to form their opinion on the basis of their left/right tendency or culture group and then seek out evidence to support that opinion while ignoring evidence that contradicts their opinion.
Edit: I see that my response is somewhat orthogonal to your post. But yes, I also largely agree with what you wrote.
Which is why I want such basic stuff in the nation curriculum - make How To Lie With Statistics a set text….
It still shocks me how many times I have to explain Survivor Bias, The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data etc to educated adults I work with.
I think a bigger problem is the "Believe Who" versus "Believe What" dichotomy of mindsets.
The standard way of misinformation propagation relies on the "Believe Who" style of thinking.
Step 1: Choose what you want to believe. Step 2: Choose your "who": Find someone remotely plausible who says what you want to believe. This is easy enough, see Goldacre's Law [There is no claim so stupid that you can't find at least one doctor or academic somewhere in the world who is willing to put it forward] Step 3: Credentialism argument: praise the one(s) you've found in step 2 (eg claim Robert Malone "invented mRNA", or claim Malhotra as the moest pre-eminent cardiologist, etc). Simultaneously disparage whoever takes the opposing side (they're paid for it, or they're biased, or they're compromised, or they said something sometime that can be argued to be - well, whatever).
At no point, engage properly in the substance of the discussion. Make airy claims that are pushed by the selected "who," and ignore disproofs - either they are biased/compromised/etc, or just plain ignore them. "Who" is more important than "what." And this style is more aimed towards "prove" rather than "disprove" (because you don't want to have to change your mind). Changing your mind is a sign of weakness.
On the "Believe What" style, you have to approach the actual facts and see if they stand up. Is it incoherent? Mathematically impossible? Taken out of context or cherry-picked? What do other data sources say? Are they clean data sources? Is it consistent or inconsistent? "What" is far more important than "who." And it's aimed more towards "disprove" rather than "prove," because science is based on that - whatever we initially guess or feel is demonstrably likely to be wrong rather than right, because the universe is like that. Changing your mind is a sign of strength.
On the vaccine left-right split: is this down to the fact that vaccines are often about group immunity, rather than personal immunity? As an individual, I may not stand much chance of getting seriously ill from Disease A. But the vaccine gives me a tiny, tiny chance of being ill. But the vaccine stops people who are much more vulnerable from Disease A becoming ill, and from the disease spreading.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
I wonder if there was a bit of that with attitudes to cloth masks. My understanding is that they weren't much good for protecting the wearer, but did quite a lot of good for others if worn by carriers.
The weird thing to me was the strange attitude that a paper mask is just fine, when an N95 is available.
Sure, better than nothing. But there’s a reason that Health & Safety would drop a bridge on you for issuing paper masks in some workplaces.
N95 are designed, made and tested to stop virus sized particles. Paper masks ain’t.
N95s are horrible to wear for prolonged periods. Paper masks aren’t great, but they are considerably less distressing
Basically, all masks are shit, and it’s time to dump them
This is especially good advice for somewhere like Thailand, where 95% of people are still wearing masks (beyond tourist areas) even outdoors. Nuts. Depressing. Stop!
I find N95 easier to wear. Pulling the straps mega tight is the usual mistake.
The British public don't like losers. That's why "one more push" didn't work with Kinnock or Corbyn. Johnson is yesterday's man.
I'd understand it if he was remembered as a particularly good leader who ruled over us when the UK was an elysium of milk and honey, but he's mostly remembered as a guy who partied while the rest of us were being kept, against our will, under house arrest.
Why do we keep electing losers as party leaders then....
Sunak is a lot of things, but demonstrably in his favour, he's neither Johnson nor Truss.
The Red Wall has expanded beyond all useful definition if it includes a crowd at Alexandra Palace. WWC in the SE, yes.
I'm suggesting that there's probably a decent crossover between WWC voters in general and what we call the "red wall".
Boris was successful because he was seen as reaching the parts that other Conservative politicians didn't reach, there's palpable evidence that those voters have since turned against him.
Sunak, as a socially awkward pint sized billionaire, is unlikely to impress either. But bringing back Johnson isn't the answer, because at this point he's clearly a busted flush.
Is Sunak socially awkward? He seems moderately personable to me. He makes gaffes because of his wealth and he’s not a funny guy, but I don’t see awkwardness. He’s too smooth if anything, in a Davosian way
He will lose badly in 2024
Boris was unusually charming to a large chunk of the British electorate. A one off. A naturally gifted politician who shamefully wasted his talents - and majority - with foolish libertinism and blasé selfishness
From a social awkwardness perspective, I see Sunak as a lot like me. He seems utterly confident, probably quite dominant, albeit it an quiet way, in a social setting he's comfortable with. Put him in the boardroom and you know he's the boss.
But. Later that day, the bog at number 10 gets blocked. Sunak calls a plumber. He proceeds to make awkward, disjointed small talk about the weather/day's events while offering to make cups of sugary tea. The plumber overcharges him 2x for the job, and walks away knowing he's a mug.
That's Sunak. Incredibly competent around people within his milieu, but utterly unable to connect with people outside of it. See also - him trying to put petrol in a car, use a contactless card etc.
Fair
Btw if you’re still depressed - as you mentioned - get yerself to Bangkok. I was depressed in december - slothful, indolent, too boozy, becoming reclusive…. It was partly the winter weather — I get SAD - and also flashbacks to lockdown 3 I think. When I was locked in and borderline suicidal
A week out here in the sun has dispelled my gloom entirely. Praise be. Try it! (If you still need it)
Tempting.
Post pandemic, my mood is definitely a lot worse in winter and my therapist definitely thinks I have seasonal affective disorder. I'm studying some super boring professional qualifications at the moment but once I have them I'll be a lot more globally mobile - tempted to eff off from the UK forever, tbh.
What is here, other than rain and taxes?
I’m afraid I agree with your last sentence. And Thailand (as an example) has zero income taxes, in effect (as long as you can prove you have private health insurance etc)
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
Most people though are on contracts based in one city or town and country, even if they only attend team meetings a few times a month in person and otherwise wfh.
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
The productivity issue is interesting. And why outsourcing IT has repeatedly failed to deliver.
As I have previously mentioned, in one company we had (due to mergers and acquisitions) teams around the world working on the same code base. The perfect test. London was actually the most productive per dollar.
The reason is a matrix of culture, legal and physical infrastructure.
In one interesting instance an Indian chap moved back to India, for personal reasons. Highly productive in the U.K., he was at the Indian average within a few months.
This stuff has been seen repeatedly, over many years.
That’s interesting
Has anyone worked out why? The adventitious collision of minds in London, or the fact it is shit and rainy half the time in London, so you might as well work?
These things are quirky. I am 98% certain I am more productive out here in Bangkok (esp in the UK winter), There are many reasons, but one is the time difference. When I wake up at 10am, it is 3am in London, so the internet is dead, and there is no one to argue with on PB, no Twitter storms to distract me, so I might as well go straight to work. And I do. By the time I am finished it is time for lunch then after that the UK wakes up and I can waste time on Ye Twitter….when the work is already done
Rinse and repeat, day by day, for me
It’s a combination of things.
Remember, as a writer, you are working solo. And you are living alone.
So journalists are surprised when WFH causes systemic collapse in some organisations.
WFB - Working From Beach - has been tried in IT repeatedly since before 2000
I continue to be surprised how my work fail to see how structurally corrosive having >90% people WFH >90% of the time is. It's not hybrid in any meaningful sense of the word.
It works ok in productivity terms if you know exactly what you are doing, but it instantly falls apart in any sort of complex, multi-person, technically difficult project. Edit - particularly when you have a high turnover of people and/or lots of junior colleagues joining the team.
Next week a group of Conservative backbench MPs will meet in Westminster to set up a new political group.
It does not have a name yet but it does have a purpose — one which may not be hugely welcome in Downing Street.
The 40-strong “ginger group” — a faction that aims to enliven debate and influence the direction of the party — wants to ensure that although Liz Truss’s government may have been consigned to history, the Tory ideology she espoused lives to fight another day.
The Times is a pathetic Sunakite rag, desperately spinning for their boy. File any of their commentary on this matter in the bin.
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
I am 100% certain the Tories “go Ginger” in economics under their new leader after the next election.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
Steve Barclay also a contender
No he’s not.
He will be, indeed if Sunak loses the next general election and Johnson loses his seat I would make Barclay the likeliest next Tory leader and thus Leader of the Opposition as of now
He’s the next out the cabinet. You ignoring/defending his abysmal communication skills and even worse managing of the crisis in recent months?
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
Let the people read the threads and decide for themselves
I toast you from the rooftop bar of my hotel with my third g&t. Given that they are £4 each, I am not sure I am “drowning my sorrows”. But cheers anyway
Comments
https://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Tin-Foil-Hat
I look at pictures sent by my family there, and as I say, if only!
Every now and again one of our regular posters will link to the latest antivax nonsense that has found its way onto twitter, and there will be a short discussion around it. That's okay, because those posters post about lots of different things and they don't try to dominate every thread with antivax monomania. The idea still gets discussed.
It's the posters who are only coming here to spread antivax nonsense that are banned.
This matters. Vaccines have helped remove many health risks: from polio to measles. Measles cases are increasing, probably because of all the scare stories caused by shits who make money from FUD, like Kennedy.
I don't worship Fauci. But I do think we should all be glad for the vaccines that have been developed, and the scientists who developed them. Sadly, the people who take the vaccines have to share the planet with the idiots who are fearful of their own socks.
Mortality is only next to nothing in China as they stopped reporting it.
Compare Hong Kong last year to the U.K. over 65s were largely vaccinated in the U.K. but not Hong Kong. Hong Kong was overwhelmed with Covid last spring. The U.K. was not.
I’ve had four jabs. I’ve no regrets.
He is truly the heir to Newton. In fact, Newton should kneel at the toes of the giant, five-thousand foot tall statue that will be erected in his memory, made solely of knapped flint
Of course, you can reach the point where vaccine-related events become more likely due to a decrease in the incidence of infections. If our virus only infected a 100 people, but we vaccinated all 100,000, then our vaccine causes more harm. This is why we simply don't vaccinate everyone for everything, because the risks of vaccinating someone against a rare disease outweigh the benefits.
Didn't we go through all this when the vaccines were getting rolled out? I'm sure I remember a press conference stating that, at that time, the risks of infection vastly outweighed the risks of vaccination.
"The Neolithic 'Hindsgavl Dagger', found in Denmark and dated to ca 1900-1700 BCE. One of the most beautiful examples of Neolithic flint knapping."
Chamberlain never lost a general election but never won one either. May won most seats in 2017 and never lost.
Cameron never lost a general election too and won a majority in one and most seats in the
other. Johnson never lost one as well and won in 2019
Health officials insisted on Wednesday it was "not necessary" to dwell on the exact number.
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2023/0114/1346662-china-covid/
Something has been going seriously wrong in our country for several years and it has to stop.
And now the times comparing antivaxxers to grooming gangs.
These developments are sinister.
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1614215854962491395?s=20&t=dZc8b4kYbGUFqT1-OE473g
Edit - actually I think I'm wrong about Campbell-Bannerman. I think he was leader in the 1900 election. I'd forgotten Harcourt only last a very short while.
So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?
One should hesitate before saying Enoch Powell was right, but his line about all political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, ending in failure was bang on the nail.
However, given the dominant narrative that Covid is mild, except in the old, a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection is a harder sell for the young, even though it's still of net benefit to them individually.
constitution and minimum wage and Northern Ireland and Cameron in terms of gay marriage. Wilson too with comprehensive schools and the Open University.
Many PMs leave a legacy if there long enough
But all evidence should certainly be heard. Especially when pharma has had a problem with suppressing negative results. Sourcing is also important.
The truck bomb and the suppression of lab leak discussion were both good examples of attempts at evidence suppression - possibly for good reasons at the time (maybe opsec and public order respectively). But it makes the bad actors' job easier in the long run as they can spin their rumour and innuendo more effectively.
Plenty of people were debating the lab leak on here all the time. No one was stopped from doing so and plenty of people were saying it was a possibility. I know because I was one of them and always felt it was a debate that had reasonable support as a hypothesis. What didn't happen is everyone saying 'oh yes Leon, you must be right, what a genius you are' - which by your arrogant standards is tantamount to being banned on debating the subject.
People want evidence. They are happy to support a working hypothesis but won't embrace it until they get some more than just circumstantial and hearsay. You on the other hand pick up hearsay and swear it is gospel.
The only way you can now reconcile things is to claim that debate on the origins was suppressed. It wasn't. Lots of people thought you were wrong and given your 'unique' personality that translates quickly into a slanging match. But no one was banned for claiming it was a lab leak. No one had to remove posts. On the occasions I mentioned it the worst I ever got was a counter argument pointing out possible flaws. I still believe it to be the most likely source and no one has told me I am not allowed to say that.
You are an intelligent person who pays attention to detail so you know all this to be factually correct. And yet you persist in claiming debate was suppressed. That makes you a liar.
I have missed knocking up the voters.
But the final image is always the curtain coming down sooner than the politician in question would like.
This is why I am medium term deeply pessimistic for the UK. The weather is shit half the year, and a lot of people have discovered that they can work from ANYWHERE
Why work from home when you can work from paradise, as the Spectator rightly asked? So prescient
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-work-from-home-when-you-can-work-from-paradise/
The UK, given its shit climate, Stygian winter darkness, pig ugly towns, hideous obese people, farcical Woke culture, collapsing health care, idiot lefties, horrible transport issues, insane immigration nightmare, and the perennial problem of Newent, needs to be heading to zero taxes to attract people or simply retain the rich
instead, we march in the opposite direction. This will not end well
I'm not certain, though I suspect there is literature out there, that the vaccinated and infected had lower incidences of strokes and heart attacks (when appropriately controlled) due to infection than the unvaccinated and infected.
A more complicated public message and, as you say, possibly a harder sell, though I think the numbers suggest that people bought it (as in willing purchasers rather than being duped).
"The UK is to send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to bolster the country's war effort, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.
He spoke to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in a call on Saturday, during which he confirmed he would send the equipment and additional artillery systems, No 10 said.
Downing Street said the move shows "the UK's ambition to intensify support."
The BBC understands the initial commitment is for about a dozen tanks."
Another example, the wealth tax and the assumption that anyone rich will leave if they have to pay a 0.5% tax. I am only normally patriotic and know that living in the UK is worth a lot more than 0.5%, yet the most patriotic will fret and worry that anyone rich will leave.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
2.05 Kempton - Paint The Dream
2.25 Warwick - Snake Roll
2.40 Kempton - Petit Tonnerre
3.00 Warwick - Nestor Park
Enjoy your Saturday 🙂
Only the rich and self employed rich like you or retired rich are really able to move to sunnier climes every winter
The local election results are likely to see Sunak challenged. Cue the same people here who were urging the Tories to be 'ruthless' when getting rid of Truss urge the Tories to be 'sensible and cautious' when considering Sunak getting the push.
You talk about hoping the PB mods don't ban people for discussing your latest pet conspiracy theory and then in the next sentence support that contention by claiming people weren't allowed to discuss the lab leak - no mention of twitter or facebook. Then when you get called out you try and squirm out of it. Crawl back inside your bottle.
Mourdant, Badenoch and Leaky Sue are all at home with this Ginger economics. And from that position it will be easy-peasy to attack and write off Sunak premeirship that cost Tories power as a high tax, high borrow profligate wasteful spending mistake.
Yes, it’s mid seventies all over again when Lady Thatcher embraced economic liberalism, saving the Tories and getting them to quickly bounce back from two defeats.
Ginger? In honour of Truss they were going to call it the blonde group and “blonde economics”, but soon changed their mind.
So your allegation that I am lying is, well, a lie? Tsk
However, I do apologise for calling you a “fat swaying bloated Lincolnshire pig’s bladder”. I have no idea if you are actually from Lincolnshire
(2) - Without the vax, either we'd have had to have it surge through the entire population prior to having any immunity (and remember that by the end of 2020, only 10% of the country had had the virus. In addition, the heart and lung problems (and other systemic damage) caused by the virus longer-term would affect a far higher proportion of the country. Accordingly, the vax MASSIVELY reduced both the mortality rate and the hospitalisation rate and permitted a far earlier exit from restrictions than was previously possible.
(3) - It's always interesting how antivaxxers gloss over about a 100 per million fatality rate in children, describing it as "almost zero," (which is arguably accurate) and then highlight a far far lower risk of mortality from the vaccine and insist that is therefore too high.
Myocarditis from the virus is six to seven times more likely than myocarditis from the vaccine. In addition, viral myocarditis is ten times more damaging than vaccine myocarditis. And, of course, you have all the other impacts of the virus (lungs, heart, kidneys, etc).
Not that the antivaxxers actually care about the facts. They insist we need to discuss them, then ignore them when they point against them. Relying instead on sheer repetition and reach (it's a well known bias that if you hear many people saying something, you assume there has to be something to it).
Don’t want one of those messy panics.
An odd mix of hippy greenery and government is evil rightwingdom.
Then, once people have stopped noticing you’re new, you can start quoting Malhotra.
https://twitter.com/dr_barrett/status/1613848877689438210?t=5mIU-TUzA3Yj8uUdYioGPQ&s=19
1) like every medicine in existence, there is a risk to the vaccines. This is extremely tiny.
2) there is a risk to children from COVID. While tiny, it is noticeable - numbers of children all the way down to babies died from COVID in the U.K. for example.
The numbers so far suggest that the risk of vaccination of children was lower than the risk to the children from COVID. Given universality of exposure, that means that there was less risk for children to be vaccinated than not.
Those lacking in such training are more likely to form their opinion on the basis of their left/right tendency or culture group and then seek out evidence to support that opinion while ignoring evidence that contradicts their opinion.
Edit: I see that my response is somewhat orthogonal to your post. But yes, I also largely agree with what you wrote.
In the red corner, Tezos, a crypto token which has completely tanked in value since United started promoting it.
In the blue corner OKX, a shady crypto exchange under investigation in Canada for violating securities law. #MUNMCI
In both cases, crypto isn't using football just for the traditional purpose of advertising - promoting the product to customers - but also to reputation-wash the product.
The glamour of the Manchester derby puts a respectable sheen on an increasingly discredited industry.
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1614235682456715265
You can’t. Because I didn’t say it. Because I know it is not true. PB is where I developed my ideas about Lab Leak, being unable to discuss it elsewhere
We can all read this thread. This is wearisomely stupid, and you are not normally stupid. I am disappointed in you. Tut
The "natural immunity" proponents for measles do have to desperately ignore the unfortunate fact that we've learned in recent years that measles infection damages the immune system's "memory" - wiping out natural immunity accumulated against other viruses to that date.
I've put "natural immunity" in quotes, because using that term for disease-acquired immunity ended up being a bit of a misstep: not only does all immunity use the natural immune system (ignorance over this leads to the antivaxxer "pureblood" idiots who seem to believe that the vaccine is a medicine that circulates in your blood stream forever and fights the virus instead of using your immune system), it means something special to the hippy greenery types (like "all natural farming" or "natural foods.") - that "natural" == "good".
Everton fans have planned a sit-in demonstration against the board after the game, with the #AllTogetherNow campaign – comprising numerous supporter groups – having called on the club’s owner, Farhad Moshiri, to make “sweeping changes” at chair, board and executive levels.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/14/everton-southampton-premier-league-board-safety-security-threat
As I have previously mentioned, in one company we had (due to mergers and acquisitions) teams around the world working on the same code base. The perfect test. London was actually the most productive per dollar.
The reason is a matrix of culture, legal and physical infrastructure.
In one interesting instance an Indian chap moved back to India, for personal reasons. Highly productive in the U.K., he was at the Indian average within a few months.
This stuff has been seen repeatedly, over many years.
As many antivaxxers cross over with the more fervent "lockdown sceptics" (in scare quotes because it refers to those who follow Toby Young, who coined the term, rather than those who had reservations or disagreements about it more generally), isn't it strange that all of a sudden they're ignoring Sweden?
A country that has had very high vaccination rates, no sudden deaths, and a decreased rate of myocarditis deaths and pericarditis deaths in comparison to before the pandemic.
I'm in agreement with your post. If the Tories are insane enough to bring back the lying incompetent clown then I will probably vote Labour, or at least vote LD as I have for the last two GEs
It still shocks me how many times I have to explain Survivor Bias, The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data etc to educated adults I work with.
Has anyone worked out why? The adventitious collision of minds in London, or the fact it is shit and rainy half the time in London, so you might as well work?
These things are quirky. I am 98% certain I am more productive out here in Bangkok (esp in the UK winter), There are many reasons, but one is the time difference. When I wake up at 10am, it is 3am in London, so the internet is dead, and there is no one to argue with on PB, no Twitter storms to distract me, so I might as well go straight to work. And I do. By the time I am finished it is time for lunch then after that the UK wakes up and I can waste time on Ye Twitter….when the work is already done
Rinse and repeat, day by day, for me
Only after a second general election defeat do they go for the hardliner to appeal to the base ie IDS and Corbyn before finally moving back to the centre again
Sure, better than nothing. But there’s a reason that Health & Safety would drop a bridge on you for issuing paper masks in some workplaces.
N95 are designed, made and tested to stop virus sized particles. Paper masks ain’t.
Just walked past another building site, where the guys handling the insulation material are using no protective gear.
The fibres from when you cut that stuff are really, really nasty.
My relative, who runs a building company insists on disposable suits, masks and goggles. The guys complain bitterly, but they won’t be coughing non stop by the age of 50….
Basically, all masks are shit, and it’s time to dump them
This is especially good advice for somewhere like Thailand, where 95% of people are still wearing masks (beyond tourist areas) even outdoors. Nuts. Depressing. Stop!
Remember, as a writer, you are working solo. And you are living alone.
So journalists are surprised when WFH causes systemic collapse in some organisations.
WFB - Working From Beach - has been tried in IT repeatedly since before 2000
The standard way of misinformation propagation relies on the "Believe Who" style of thinking.
Step 1: Choose what you want to believe.
Step 2: Choose your "who": Find someone remotely plausible who says what you want to believe. This is easy enough, see Goldacre's Law [There is no claim so stupid that you can't find at least one doctor or academic somewhere in the world who is willing to put it forward]
Step 3: Credentialism argument: praise the one(s) you've found in step 2 (eg claim Robert Malone "invented mRNA", or claim Malhotra as the moest pre-eminent cardiologist, etc). Simultaneously disparage whoever takes the opposing side (they're paid for it, or they're biased, or they're compromised, or they said something sometime that can be argued to be - well, whatever).
At no point, engage properly in the substance of the discussion. Make airy claims that are pushed by the selected "who," and ignore disproofs - either they are biased/compromised/etc, or just plain ignore them. "Who" is more important than "what." And this style is more aimed towards "prove" rather than "disprove" (because you don't want to have to change your mind). Changing your mind is a sign of weakness.
On the "Believe What" style, you have to approach the actual facts and see if they stand up. Is it incoherent? Mathematically impossible? Taken out of context or cherry-picked? What do other data sources say? Are they clean data sources? Is it consistent or inconsistent? "What" is far more important than "who." And it's aimed more towards "disprove" rather than "prove," because science is based on that - whatever we initially guess or feel is demonstrably likely to be wrong rather than right, because the universe is like that. Changing your mind is a sign of strength.
It works ok in productivity terms if you know exactly what you are doing, but it instantly falls apart in any sort of complex, multi-person, technically difficult project. Edit - particularly when you have a high turnover of people and/or lots of junior colleagues joining the team.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
I toast you from the rooftop bar of my hotel with my third g&t. Given that they are £4 each, I am not sure I am “drowning my sorrows”. But cheers anyway