Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
I've commented this before, but my profession, background, and income should put me and most people I associate with as firm Conservative voters, despite us being in our 20s. I do not know a single one - even the come from wealth, free house from the family, university conservative types are at the very least Lib Dems, and this isn't some inbuilt feature, just four years ago a majority of them that I knew then were among the 20% of U25s that voted Conservative. Yesterday I even had a director on a healthy six figure salary bemoaning the cost of childcare and housing openly wishing for a GE! I'm not really sure where they go if they're getting thrashed among bankers, consultants, accountants, and lawyers.
If they had any sense they'd combine student loan forgiveness (a 22 year old grad on 28k has the same marginal rate as a 50 year old on £125k, and a 23 year old with a masters on 28k has the same marginal rate as a magic circle Partner bringing in £1m+!) with pivoting to a Canadian Conservative position. However for as long as they don't I hope they get wiped out.
Student debt and unaffordable housing have crippled the Conservatives among the young southern middle classes.
Not that nimby LibDems are offering any improvement.
The young people who have benefitted from this government are those who are northern working class, especially male, northern working class.
Who have the best job opportunities in living memory and affordable housing as well.
Its a complete reversal of what happened in the 1980s.
In a reasonably free market the existence of affordable housing (a fact unknown to anyone within the M25, or most outside it) would lead to the creation of many -massive numbers - more job opportunities of all types where that housing exists. This would normally be the effect or ordinary market forces, supply and demand.
The extent to which this isn't happening is a bit odd.
Well there's certainly more job opportunities and vacancies around the country currently than in previous decades.
But if you want 'massively' more then that takes time and business investment - it takes years for business to relocate on a significant basis.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
They do a good Brie in the Salisbury farmer's market, just saying.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
You don't have to go down any conspiracy avenues about engineered viruses or deliberate leaks.
Bad luck, an accident, carelessness or any of the things that happen in everyday life could have been responsible.
In fact I'll suggest that such things happen regularly but with little or no effect.
Whereas in Wuhan there was a combination of things which led to disaster.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
They do a good Brie in the Salisbury farmer's market, just saying.
What about at the market by the Cathedral? With all the Russian tourists, I bet you can get some excellent pickled herring, there.
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
You don't have to go down any conspiracy avenues about engineered viruses or deliberate leaks.
Bad luck, an accident, carelessness or any of the things that happen in everyday life could have been responsible.
In fact I'll suggest that such things happen regularly but with little or no effect.
Whereas in Wuhan there was a combination of things which led to disaster.
You don't have to go down the route, but if you dive into the brown depths of Twitter et al, you'll see that 'lab leak' is mostly taken as synonymous with 'deliberately engineered virus'. I fear the idea is to get people onto the 'lab leak' hypothesis, then move the debate onto it being an engineered virus.
I also fear this thought also prevents some from taking 'lab leak' as seriously as it should.
Catching up after work, but I'm still amazed by the YouGov poll showing only 10% of under 50s supporting the Tories. At Lib Dem levels. And only rising to 15% if we generously include Reform voters.
It reflects the complete inability of the Conservatives to appeal to Millennial (the oldest of which are mid 40s) or younger voters.
And this is no longer an age group that can be ignored electorally. 18-25 year olds' - fine. Even under 40s is possible. But what an electorally successful party cannot do is become the party of pensioners.
There's no way they will make this adjustment while in power, but once in opposition they need to find a way to get people to follow the traditional trend of becoming more right-wing as they get old. Or else they will spend a lot of time in the wilderness.
I've commented this before, but my profession, background, and income should put me and most people I associate with as firm Conservative voters, despite us being in our 20s. I do not know a single one - even the come from wealth, free house from the family, university conservative types are at the very least Lib Dems, and this isn't some inbuilt feature, just four years ago a majority of them that I knew then were among the 20% of U25s that voted Conservative. Yesterday I even had a director on a healthy six figure salary bemoaning the cost of childcare and housing openly wishing for a GE! I'm not really sure where they go if they're getting thrashed among bankers, consultants, accountants, and lawyers.
If they had any sense they'd combine student loan forgiveness (a 22 year old grad on 28k has the same marginal rate as a 50 year old on £125k, and a 23 year old with a masters on 28k has the same marginal rate as a magic circle Partner bringing in £1m+!) with pivoting to a Canadian Conservative position. However for as long as they don't I hope they get wiped out.
Student debt and unaffordable housing have crippled the Conservatives among the young southern middle classes.
Not that nimby LibDems are offering any improvement.
The young people who have benefitted from this government are those who are northern working class, especially male, northern working class.
Who have the best job opportunities in living memory and affordable housing as well.
Its a complete reversal of what happened in the 1980s.
In a reasonably free market the existence of affordable housing (a fact unknown to anyone within the M25, or most outside it) would lead to the creation of many -massive numbers - more job opportunities of all types where that housing exists. This would normally be the effect or ordinary market forces, supply and demand.
The extent to which this isn't happening is a bit odd.
Well there's certainly more job opportunities and vacancies around the country currently than in previous decades.
But if you want 'massively' more then that takes time and business investment - it takes years for business to relocate on a significant basis.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
AIUI this wasn't a major issue before Musky Baby took over. I wonder what changed?
I've been seeing lots of adult material on Twitter recently - and before anyone asks, I wasn't looking for anything dodgy. People are inserting adult images into adverts that are placed in totally unconnected threads.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
That’s a great way of telling the media to go eff themselves.
Sometimes bad things are simply the result of a tragic accident, and there’s not anyone to “blame” for the outcome.
I highly doubt the GOP vote would split like this if Trump was convicted of something or other.
How do you think they will split, then ?
GOP would be 80: 20 imho
Though a party that loses 20% of its support is still completely rubber ducked.
(Though even 40% retention for a convicted candidate is pretty alarming.)
Even if 100% of Republicans would still vote for him, the split among Independents in that poll would give Trump no chance.
If I recall correctly, a large majority of "independents" typically vote Republican. Democrat-leaning voters are more likely to identify as a Democrat, while GOP-leaning voters are quite likely to identify as Independent.
So the independent split in that poll is even worse for Trump than it appears at first glance.
Q.29 More specifically, if the 2024 general election for President were held today and the candidates were Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden, for whom would you vote? Definitely Trump 40 Probably Trump 7 Probably Biden 6 Definitely Biden 37 Undecided 10
Q.62 (SPLIT A) If Donald Trump is convicted of a felony in either the classified documents or January 6th federal trials and the election for President were held, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Joe Biden? Definitely Trump 38 Probably Trump 7 Probably Biden 4 Definitely Biden 42 Undecided 9
Then they also have: Q.63 (SPLIT If Joe Biden is impeached by the House of Representatives due to his involvement with his son Hunter’s foreign influence peddling and the election for President were held, would you vote for Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Joe Biden? Definitely Trump 41 Probably Trump 5 Probably Biden 8 Definitely Biden 33 Undecided 13
Looking at total Trump vs total Biden it's Trump +4 If Trump convicted: Biden +1 If Biden impeached: Trump +5
Depending on the circumstances, if Trump is really convicted it might have even less effect, if enough people think he is the victim.
Yes, I'm always wary of polls that say "If X happened, how would you vote" as it almost prompts the voter to change the previous "neutral" response. In practice there are so mmany cross-currents in an election that the impact of each is diluted. A conviction that is in the process of appeal (seems quite a plsubile scenario) won't have much effect IMO.
Worth adding that another thing that could happen here is an *acquittal*
With Russian forces stuck in a stalemate on the frontlines in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is facing a drain on the Kremlin coffers that threaten to sink his war machine.
Russia’s oil and gas revenues have plummeted by 37pc in just one year, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
A combination of falling prices and Western sanctions are driving Putin’s revenues steadily down even though he is pumping more oil, the report says.
“Russian oil exports rose by 500,000 barrels a day (kb/d) in December… but estimated export revenues slumped to a six-month low of $14.4bn (£11.3bn), as Russian oil price discounts increased and benchmark oil prices declined,” the IEA concludes.
“Putin’s revenues have gone down massively,” says Ashley Kelty, director of oil and gas research at Panmure Gordon.
Some of us have been saying for months, that the Western priority has to be reducing the oil price as far as possible, by any means necessary, to starve Putin of the resources required to fund the war. He’s selling O&G to India and China at a significant discount to market, which ideally would approach zero.
A reduced oil price would of course also have useful political impacts on those Western governments up for election this year, Mr Sunak and Mr Biden among them.
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
AIUI this wasn't a major issue before Musky Baby took over. I wonder what changed?
I've been seeing lots of adult material on Twitter recently - and before anyone asks, I wasn't looking for anything dodgy. People are inserting adult images into adverts that are placed in totally unconnected threads.
It's a problem Musk's created.
Hmm not sure about that. I was definitely getting spam in my feed before Musk arrived.
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
AIUI this wasn't a major issue before Musky Baby took over. I wonder what changed?
I've been seeing lots of adult material on Twitter recently - and before anyone asks, I wasn't looking for anything dodgy. People are inserting adult images into adverts that are placed in totally unconnected threads.
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
"You wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
Just wondering what my referees would say if I put "Read TwiX. Can’t be arsed to spoon feed [fill in as appropriate] colleagues" in my publications instead of, you know, providing things like evidence and references.
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
Yes, exactly
Their reaction wasn’t “oh god this is bad and yes there is a lab doing bat virus research 300 yards from the first bat virus cases, we need to examine all avenues and get to the truth”
Instead they said “it came from the market, that is the only possible theory. Anyone who thinks or says it came from the lab is a racist conspiracist.” That’s literally what they said to the world, and they persuaded Facebook and Twitter to delete any comments about lab leak FOR A YEAR
And, on top of that, as we now know from FOIA’d emails, even as fauci and friends were saying this shite in public, in private they were discussing the very real possibility that it came from the lab
That right there is a cover up, for which people should do time - WHATEVER the actual origins
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
That would be the TwiX that was convinced Lord MacAlpine was a nonce?
PS Can you provide us the What.3.Words location of the lab please ?
Sure
Here you go
///says.bind.loved
That’s the location of the Wuhan CDC, with its reservoir of bats used for gain of function virology research, in late 2019. It was BSL2 (ie: unsafe). It’s about 300 yards from the market
To clarify, BSL2 is not intrinsically unsafe, it’s just inappropriate for this kind of research
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
There would presumably be an internationally recognised Palestinian state with internal autonomy, but with Israel in charge of security. A bit like the Isle of Man vis a vis the UK. It would be a step forward for the Palestinians to be honest but I am not for one minute suggesting it would be acceptable to either side.
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
"You wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
Just wondering what my referees would say if I put "Read TwiX. Can’t be arsed to spoon feed [fill in as appropriate] colleagues" in my publications instead of, you know, providing things like evidence and references.
We recently had a debate where you were presented with definitive evidence that you were wrong - and you STILL refused to accept it. So it’s no wonder others have stopped bothering to open your tiny mind
I could get Batwoman Shi on here on a live webcam admitting that “yes we did it, it came from our lab” even as she danced semi naked with special tinsel attached to her nipples and you would still refuse to believe it even as you did some weird little scotch orgasm into your oaten breakfast
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
AIUI this wasn't a major issue before Musky Baby took over. I wonder what changed?
I've been seeing lots of adult material on Twitter recently - and before anyone asks, I wasn't looking for anything dodgy. People are inserting adult images into adverts that are placed in totally unconnected threads.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
That’s a great way of telling the media to go eff themselves.
Sometimes bad things are simply the result of a tragic accident, and there’s not anyone to “blame” for the outcome.
Well, indeed. Could have happened to any lone parent. Particularly over Christmas when you're not going to be missed by work, school etc
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
Maybe my memory is deceiving me, but did it turn out in the third series of True Detective that no one was to blame? I think so, and I remembered thinking how good that was
@robfordmancs New on the Swingometer - "Stop the Boats has failed" - I take a look at what Sunak's campaign was designed to achieve politically. It has failed on every yardstick.
This is an excellent review of how badly the 'Stop the Boats' has failed politically, as well as policy-wise.
Just a year of the govt punching itself in the face. Remarkable. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a unforced, politically damaging error. And they're just... carrying on
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
That would be the TwiX that was convinced Lord MacAlpine was a nonce?
PS Can you provide us the What.3.Words location of the lab please ?
Sure
Here you go
///says.bind.loved
That’s the location of the Wuhan CDC, with its reservoir of bats used for gain of function virology research, in late 2019. It was BSL2 (ie: unsafe). It’s about 300 yards from the market
To clarify, BSL2 is not intrinsically unsafe, it’s just inappropriate for this kind of research
As Jeremy Farrar said, when told of BSL2 labs doing this virology, “ that’s Wild West stuff”
About 3 days later he signed the Lancet letter denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy
“What the scientists behind The Science REALLY thought about a lab leak
ANTHONY FAUCI, Feb. 4, 2020: Surely that [gain of function research] wouldn’t be done in a [low-security] BSL-2 lab?
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
The difference is that Hamas has a policy of killing all Jews. If they were the government of a Palestinian state that would be… unpleasant
Arab Israelis already exist in a democratic and free society.
Rejecting a 2 state solution is not the same as genocide
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
"You wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
Just wondering what my referees would say if I put "Read TwiX. Can’t be arsed to spoon feed [fill in as appropriate] colleagues" in my publications instead of, you know, providing things like evidence and references.
We recently had a debate where you were presented with definitive evidence that you were wrong - and you STILL refused to accept it. So it’s no wonder others have stopped bothering to open your tiny mind
I could get Batwoman Shi on here on a live webcam admitting that “yes we did it, it came from our lab” even as she danced semi naked with special tinsel attached to her nipples and you would still refuse to believe it even as you did some weird little scotch orgasm into your oaten breakfast
You use racial epithets as a term of abuse. Charming.
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
For soft-porn-spam that I get under Tweets, the salient point appears to be bodacious cleavage in the avatar. I'd love to have a single click block add-on.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
That would be the TwiX that was convinced Lord MacAlpine was a nonce?
PS Can you provide us the What.3.Words location of the lab please ?
Sure
Here you go
///says.bind.loved
That’s the location of the Wuhan CDC, with its reservoir of bats used for gain of function virology research, in late 2019. It was BSL2 (ie: unsafe). It’s about 300 yards from the market
To clarify, BSL2 is not intrinsically unsafe, it’s just inappropriate for this kind of research
As Jeremy Farrar said, when told of BSL2 labs doing this virology, “ that’s Wild West stuff”
About 3 days later he signed the Lancet letter denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy
“What the scientists behind The Science REALLY thought about a lab leak
ANTHONY FAUCI, Feb. 4, 2020: Surely that [gain of function research] wouldn’t be done in a [low-security] BSL-2 lab?
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
The difference is that Hamas has a policy of killing all Jews. If they were the government of a Palestinian state that would be… unpleasant
Arab Israelis already exist in a democratic and free society.
Rejecting a 2 state solution is not the same as genocide
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
The latest reports suggest the little boy died 2-3 days after the father (likely dehydration, I guess, unless there was a heat issue too). Very hard to have a general system that's proportionate and intervenes decisively on that timescale - the deaths could easily occur between routine visits, so that even gaining access of the first missed visit could be too late. Might be lessons to be learned here due to the father's medical history - perhaps there should be more monitoring at least available in those circumstances - say an app that you have to respond to to say you're ok once per day, if not there's a phone call within an hour or two and a visit if no response to that (and some arrangements for access). But could oly be voluntary and might result in a lot of false alarms that make it unmanageable.
ETA: But yes, sometimes bad things happen and no one is to blame. It's refreshing to see someone say that.
Lib Dem turns coat and switches to Tories, racist allegations, LTN haters, religious politics.
With all those changes of party My Sharer could be called "Churchillian".
A veteran local politician who has previously been both a Labour and a Liberal Democrat councillor in his home borough has won a clear victory for the Conservatives in Hackney’s Cazenove ward at Labour’s expense.
Ian Sharer, who represented Cazenove as a Lib Dem from 2002 until Labour gained all three seats in 2018, received 1,623 votes, leaving Labour’s Laura Pascal in a distant second place with 935 after a campaign in which both hyper-local and international issues played a part.
The Conservative appears to have thrived on a combination of a strong personal vote, perhaps especially among fellow Jewish Londoners who make-up almost a quarter of the ward’s population, and his opposition to Labour-run Hackney Council’s enthusiastic installation of Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes, which have been strongly opposed by Jewish residents. Turnout was high for a by-election at 31.9 per cent.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
A decade ago one of my old friends died, probably of a drug overdose mixed with alcohol. It was a month before he was found in his flat, because of the smell in a heatwave. These things happen when social networks are patchy.
Twitter is having another go at cracking down on the ‘adult material’, especially in paid and unpaid adverts. All ‘adult’ accounts and images need to be labelled as such, so that people don’t see them by accident.
For soft-porn-spam that I get under Tweets, the salient point appears to be bodacious cleavage in the avatar. I'd love to have a single click block add-on.
I think the turning point was when Tumblr banned the adult material, all of the people involved moved over to Twitter.
It’s not been helped in the last couple of years, that these exhibitionists can now make serious money from “fan” sites, so many more of them are now working full-time, using free sites such as Twitter to advertise their paid “services”.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
The news cycle hasn't been particularly Labour-favourable in recent weeks so their polling seems pretty resilient. It's been: PO scandal (largely neutral for Labour), Israel-Gaza (potentially negative for Labour), Immigration (neutral at best for them).
Little or no coverage of areas that would boost Labour VI: NHS waiting lists, schools falling down, infrastructure being cancelled, economic woes, failures in the justice system. Economic and inflation news has been fairly boring recently and this week's uptick in inflation went largely unremarked.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is .. a fucking moron"....
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
The difference is that Hamas has a policy of killing all Jews. If they were the government of a Palestinian state that would be… unpleasant
Arab Israelis already exist in a democratic and free society.
Rejecting a 2 state solution is not the same as genocide
Lab Leak is now all but confirmed. Does that matter?
YES IT FUCKING MATTERS
20 million people died. The world spent $25 TRILLION fighting the pandemic. Millions more lives were ruined. Millions of jobs have been lost. Entire nations have been endangered by debt and displacement, science itself has been brought into dangerous disrepute. The experts lied to us; and they knowingly lied - “lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory”
And all because a small band of arrogant scientists thought it would be fun to fuck around with novel bat viruses, making them even more dangerous to humans, and they were paid by America to do it in China in low security biolabs, science explicitly forbidden in the USA because it is “too dangerous”
It reads like a lurid thriller. Yet that is what happened. People need to pay with their liberty - or worse
To take a more fact based approach: "the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Or do you have more up to date and reliable evidence?
That would be the TwiX that was convinced Lord MacAlpine was a nonce?
PS Can you provide us the What.3.Words location of the lab please ?
Sure
Here you go
///says.bind.loved
That’s the location of the Wuhan CDC, with its reservoir of bats used for gain of function virology research, in late 2019. It was BSL2 (ie: unsafe). It’s about 300 yards from the market
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
A decade ago one of my old friends died, probably of a drug overdose mixed with alcohol. It was a month before he was found in his flat, because of the smell in a heatwave. These things happen when social networks are patchy.
But looking at historic newspapers, it's always happened. Is it getting more common, or are we just hearing more about it because there's much more media nowadays?
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is .. a fucking moron"....
That's pretty well every post.
I did introduce the Law of Leon so we could avoid unpleasantness like this. Basically, anyone who disagrees with me should shut the fuck up
I’m virtually always right and contradicting me gets us nowhere. Despite this, I see the Law flouted constantly, sometimes on a daily basis
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
How can Israel control the entire area and there be a separate Palestinian state? How does that state have sovereignty if Israel controls its entire territory?
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
There would presumably be an internationally recognised Palestinian state with internal autonomy, but with Israel in charge of security. A bit like the Isle of Man vis a vis the UK. It would be a step forward for the Palestinians to be honest but I am not for one minute suggesting it would be acceptable to either side.
The Isle of Man is not an internationally recognised state. It isn't a member of the UN or the Commonwealth. An Isle of Man solution would be a step backwards for Palestine.
Bibi might go for something like Transkei or Bophuthatswana, but, yeah, not what most people would call a separate Palestinian state.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
The latest reports suggest the little boy died 2-3 days after the father (likely dehydration, I guess, unless there was a heat issue too). Very hard to have a general system that's proportionate and intervenes decisively on that timescale - the deaths could easily occur between routine visits, so that even gaining access of the first missed visit could be too late. Might be lessons to be learned here due to the father's medical history - perhaps there should be more monitoring at least available in those circumstances - say an app that you have to respond to to say you're ok once per day, if not there's a phone call within an hour or two and a visit if no response to that (and some arrangements for access). But could oly be voluntary and might result in a lot of false alarms that make it unmanageable.
ETA: But yes, sometimes bad things happen and no one is to blame. It's refreshing to see someone say that.
Musing. Adjacent to that, management of medical conditions is difficult, especially as many medical episodes are genuinely unpredictable in timing.
For example, I keep being asked whether I will be getting a dog (as I live alone at present). My choice is not to do so as I am aware I seem to have a serious (hospital admission) mainly diabetic-related medical episode once a decade or so - about 3 since 2000 2 of which were by causes outside my control such as random infections which had serious consequences. In such circs a pet would potentially be left loose in the house, which I do not think of as an acceptable risk.
This also feeds back into atomisation of households over the last two generations, seen in the trend in average household size. Having a two-person or more household (and some sort of neighbours / local friends network with permission to check up) is a free insurance policy. I'd put that into debates about encouraging use of spare bedrooms for lodgers for small households in underoccupied houses.
Coming out of last year's leukemia diagnosis, I need to reflect on what measures to put in place to manage this as I get older. I already live within walking distance of everything I could ever need by deliberate decision, which is a real problem for people getting older living in suburban service-deserts or remote communities.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
Remind me...
1 How many people have Rwanda agreed to take each year? (They've not signed up to take everyone... they're not muppets.)
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is .. a fucking moron"....
That's pretty well every post.
I did introduce the Law of Leon so we could avoid unpleasantness like this. Basically, anyone who disagrees with me should shut the fuck up
I’m virtually always right and contradicting me gets us nowhere. Despite this, I see the Law flouted constantly, sometimes on a daily basis
The Law of Leon absolutely never, ever gets flouted. You're dead wrong in saying it gets flouted constantly.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
It's not necessarily lack of contact, but maybe disparate social groups. If you have 2 or three disconnected friend/family groups then you may not see any particular group of people that often. I'm not in touch much with my family and only talk to my mum once a month or so. I have two local social groups, basically runners and drinkers. I was out with some of my drinking buddies last Friday and the next time will be next week. Other people I see down the pub aren't regular contacts, we just talk if we happen to be in the pub at the same time. I see my running buddies 3-4 times a week but it is common to miss a run for a variety of reasons - a cold, other commitments, work - so they probably wouldn't think anything is amiss. Parkrun might notice if I volunteer and then don't show up.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
He's a dweeb. Head stuck in spreadsheets the whole time. Eg have we seen him actually out there on the waves, looking for boats, like Farage? Not unless I've missed it.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
Facebook banned us from even mentioning “lab leak” at its most basic - an accidental leak of a natural untampered virus
Fwiw the virus that leaked was almost certainly “man-made” - to the extent it has been fucked around with. That’s exactly what they were trying to do in Wuhan. Make more pathogenic viruses (gain of function) so they could then prepare vaccines if a virus like this ever escaped in the wild
This research was banned by Obama as being far too dangerous given the small benefits accrued. So fauci offshored it to China
Here’s a video of Peter Daszak of the Wuhan lab BOASTING of this research. “We are making killer coronaviruses”
He literally says exactly what they did. And - we now know - why we had a killer coronavirus pandemic which came out of Wuhan
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
I've asked before what kind of lab leak he believes it was. There is a world of difference from a sample of wild type virus obtained from a deep cave bat leaking out by accident to wild theories he is espousing from TwiX - an actual artificially constructed virus.
If you were going to do gain of function research and aim to make something that may well prove dangerous, even the wild west Chinese scientists are not stupid enough to do this without precautions.
The origin of all previous pandemics has been zoonotic. That does not mean that SARS-cov2 was also, but it does suggest that it is entirely possible and likely. MERS and the original SARS-cov are examples. There is little doubt that humanity being in close proximity to animals leads to diseases crossing species. You do not need to go down the conspiracy black hole to explain how covid19 started.
Its a bit like looking at the current UAP flap in the US and forgetting all the other (UFO) flaps over the years. There is nothing different to the current flap to what has been seen before.
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
It is a geographical expression. However the way that the Palestinians use it “from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is incompatible with the existence of the s
Hamas ‘s phrase is to *kill* every Jew “between the river and the sea”.
Israel talks about security control.
But the (appropriate in my view) criticism of the chant at protests is not Hamas’ wording but ‘from the river to the sea Palestinians will be free’. Which, if context matters, is both more peaceful and more desirable than one side ‘controlling’ the other.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the phrase itself is inappropriate, or the chants at protests are okay.
Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing, just as left wingers who use the phrase do. You defending him does you no credit.
ETA: @StillWaters I sent you a pm a few days ago - if you had time I’d be interested in your reply. No worries if not, though.
I’m not defending Netanyahu by the way. He knows exactly what he is doing - it’s a “bus” argument designed to trigger his opponents. He’s just being an inflammatory tw*t as normal.
Fundamentally the Palestinians use it in the context of dismantling the state of Israel. That is an antisemitic position as it denies the right of the Jewish people to self determination.
Netanyahu was staring that Israel needs to control the security situation “from the river to the sea”. That’s not the same as denying the right to self determination (even though he doesn’t believe in a 2 state solution he doesn’t reference it here as it doesn’t follow - a more moderate politician might see this as a reasonable precondition for a 2 state solution).
Agreed on your last paragraph, though flip that around and it could equally apply to the phrase used on the Palestinian side. The phrase only becomes worthy of criticism because of its (known) connotations. Thus anyone who uses it should be held to the same standard.
It feels as though you (and not just you, many others on the Israeli side) are viewing things through a prism of already having decided that a Palestinian supporter must want the dismantling of the Israeli state, whereas you give the benefit of the doubt to an Israeli supporter that they may have more moderate motives.
I am a Palestinian supporter, but I don’t want the dismantling of the Israeli state. Many others are like me (not all).
I find it hard to understand how you can continue to focus on Hamas’ desire to deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination (and conflate this with an overall ‘Palestinian’ position) when Israel is so clearly denying this right to Palestinians in reality right now, indeed it is an open question whether they are engaging in genocide. What isn’t in question is that Israeli radicals, in Netanyahu’s government have called for genocide.
FFS you are comparing two different quotes and saying they are the same because they contain some of the same words.
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is .. a fucking moron"....
That's pretty well every post.
I did introduce the Law of Leon so we could avoid unpleasantness like this. Basically, anyone who disagrees with me should shut the fuck up
I’m virtually always right and contradicting me gets us nowhere. Despite this, I see the Law flouted constantly, sometimes on a daily basis
The Law of Leon absolutely never, ever gets flouted. You're dead wrong in saying it gets flouted constantly.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
I've asked before what kind of lab leak he believes it was. There is a world of difference from a sample of wild type virus obtained from a deep cave bat leaking out by accident to wild theories he is espousing from TwiX - an actual artificially constructed virus.
If you were going to do gain of function research and aim to make something that may well prove dangerous, even the wild west Chinese scientists are not stupid enough to do this without precautions.
The origin of all previous pandemics has been zoonotic. That does not mean that SARS-cov2 was also, but it does suggest that it is entirely possible and likely. MERS and the original SARS-cov are examples. There is little doubt that humanity being in close proximity to animals leads to diseases crossing species. You do not need to go down the conspiracy black hole to explain how covid19 started.
Its a bit like looking at the current UAP flap in the US and forgetting all the other (UFO) flaps over the years. There is nothing different to the current flap to what has been seen before.
lol
I’ve just this minute posted the video where Peter Daszak - co-head of the Wuhan labs - boasts (pre pandemic) that taking bat viruses and making them more pathogenic is what they are doing. That is gain of function. That is how they got funding
I invoke the Law of Leon so you don’t embarrass yourself further
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
Remind me...
1 How many people have Rwanda agreed to take each year? (They've not signed up to take everyone... they're not muppets.)
2 What's the plan for the others?
On (2), perhaps this could be confirmed by someone more up to speed, I think but the plan for the others is a limbo. They are neither allowed to stay nor required to leave nor allowed to apply to remain until they are removed to a safe third country which they can't until there is one....
If this is right the courts will act to fill the lacuna.
BTW I think we are about at the stage where everyone knows the farce must stop, but it is essential that it is someone else who is to blame for stopping it.
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
I've asked before what kind of lab leak he believes it was. There is a world of difference from a sample of wild type virus obtained from a deep cave bat leaking out by accident to wild theories he is espousing from TwiX - an actual artificially constructed virus.
If you were going to do gain of function research and aim to make something that may well prove dangerous, even the wild west Chinese scientists are not stupid enough to do this without precautions.
The origin of all previous pandemics has been zoonotic. That does not mean that SARS-cov2 was also, but it does suggest that it is entirely possible and likely. MERS and the original SARS-cov are examples. There is little doubt that humanity being in close proximity to animals leads to diseases crossing species. You do not need to go down the conspiracy black hole to explain how covid19 started.
Its a bit like looking at the current UAP flap in the US and forgetting all the other (UFO) flaps over the years. There is nothing different to the current flap to what has been seen before.
One problem is the wet market doesn't explain it. Genetic evidence is the virus emerged Oct-Nov and there are a couple of known cases from before the wet market cluster. Neither SARS-COV2 nor any similar virus have been found at the market and only 2/3 of the initial outbreak has been linked to the market.
So it looks like the market was a super-spreader event not the origin.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
A decade ago one of my old friends died, probably of a drug overdose mixed with alcohol. It was a month before he was found in his flat, because of the smell in a heatwave. These things happen when social networks are patchy.
During covid, Ambulance asking us to gain entry to a property to check on people that had missed appointments or hadn't been in contact with family or friends for a while significantly increased, to the point where I was breaking into properties a couple of times a week. Mostly, the place was empty or we interrupted someone asleep in front of the telly, but there was a fair number of people who had died, either natural causes or accidents. Ended up having a cuppa with quite a few lonely people as we arranged to get their door repaired.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
He's a dweeb. Head stuck in spreadsheets the whole time. Eg have we seen him actually out there on the waves, looking for boats, like Farage? Not unless I've missed it.
You'd think the little twat was going through the Drake Passage in Sea State 6 from the expression on his face.
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
A decade ago one of my old friends died, probably of a drug overdose mixed with alcohol. It was a month before he was found in his flat, because of the smell in a heatwave. These things happen when social networks are patchy.
During covid, Ambulance asking us to gain entry to a property to check on people that had missed appointments or hadn't been in contact with family or friends for a while significantly increased, to the point where I was breaking into properties a couple of times a week. Mostly, the place was empty or we interrupted someone asleep in front of the telly, but there was a fair number of people who had died, either natural causes or accidents. Ended up having a cuppa with quite a few lonely people as we arranged to get their door repaired.
That’s very sad, sometimes we forget just how many people live alone without regular contact with others. Something that would have been greatly exacerbated by the pandemic, when many social activities were closed for weeks at a time.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Very good point but don't worry - Dura is on one of his perennial we must stop the boats kicks.
Just reading up on the Bronson Battersby story, not immediately obvious to me what should have been done unless the police are going to immediately force entry any time a social worker reports they don't get an answer at a property. Perhaps the police are to blame here - as I say though doesn't look immediately obvious to me. A truly heartbreaking story
You have inadvertently put your finger on the problem. It should have been immediately obvious what to do, both for the police and (separately) for the social workers because there should have been (but almost certainly wasn't) a special procedure written to cover these circumstances. Instead, both agencies seem to have relied on no doubt stressed and overworked people at the bottom of the scale to think something up on the spur of the moment.
It is what I like to call the 4am problem in computer operations, or what the late medical author and anaesthetist Richard Gordon meant about the index having an entry "blue, patient turning, what to do".
Anyone who still pretends to believe it came from “the wet market” is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron
Balloux is himself a virologist of course, and one of the most balanced and least tribal commentators on Covid. Hated in equal measure by both sets of crazies.
The odd thing throughout has been how Lab leak has been dismissed as lunatic conspiracy when several recent epidemics including our own foot and mouth had the same source.
Most novel disease outbreaks are zoonotic: SARS, MERS, mpox, HIV, Ebola, swine flu etc.
The evidence against a lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 is now overwhelming, notably the initial pattern of cases being clustered around the wet market, and the initial presence of two different strains (showing exposure to a population of viruses circulating in animal hosts).
There has been, at several times, a lot of excitement about a smoking gun for the lab leak theory, with excited speculation on social media. None of these have amounted to anything. It’s rather like the excited speculation on social media that the US government is going to announce that UFOs exist, or the excited speculation on social media that artificial general intelligence (AGI) has been created.
Oh dear sweet Jesus. Lol
But thanks. I knew there’d be one PBer that responded with eerie yet adamant lunacy. I internally predicted it would either be you or @turbotubbs - or both
Incidentally the papers about the wet market cluster and the twin lineages have been completely debunked. Even the authors have retreated
I do wonder if those so desperate to deny the possibility of a lab leak would do so if it was a laboratory in the UK, USA or Israel.
"There's absolutely no chance that it was a lab leak from Porton Down, it arose in a farmers market at Salisbury."
The issue is Leon saying stuff like: "(anyone who disagrees with me) is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron"
We are looking at odds here. There are a range of possibilities, some more likely than others. It is unlikely we will ever get certainty (unless China admits it...), so it comes down to the weight an individual puts on the scant pieces of evidence we have. It should be noted that Leon ignores evidence contrary to his oft-stated belief - and it does appear to be a matter of faith for him.
My own view is that it was *probably* the wet market. It *may* have been a leak from a lab, but I currently doubt it. As more evidence comes in, that may change. But this latest 'scoop' is not particularly compelling to me.
Reasonable people can look at the 'evidence' and come up with contrary views. Claiming they may be '...is either a virologist, and possibly implicated in the deaths of 20 million people, or a fucking moron" is unreasonable in itself.
Also be aware that for some 'lab leak' is synonymous with 'an engineered virus'. That's where the debate'll head next for many, regardless of evidence.
I'd also like to add, as ever, that this debate distracts us from something that we can firmly place at China's doorstep: that their secrecy and evasions at the start of the crisis allowed the virus to spread far more rapidly than should have been the case. That's solid stuff that China should be held to account for.
We don’t have scant evidence. We have overwhelming circumstantial evidence to start with: this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
What a 'sane' person deduces is that it *may* have been a lab leak. The strength of emphasis on 'may' will depend on your views. What an insane person does is continually screech that it *was* a lab leak.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
Which suggests that the authorities weren't 'sane' as they denied the possibility.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
I thought the official line (in the US at least) is that both hypothesis are plausible? It's the certainty that some people have (either way) that causes issues.
Something Leon is very guilty of.
For a year we were banned from even talking about the lab leak on Facebook etc
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
I've asked before what kind of lab leak he believes it was. There is a world of difference from a sample of wild type virus obtained from a deep cave bat leaking out by accident to wild theories he is espousing from TwiX - an actual artificially constructed virus.
If you were going to do gain of function research and aim to make something that may well prove dangerous, even the wild west Chinese scientists are not stupid enough to do this without precautions.
The origin of all previous pandemics has been zoonotic. That does not mean that SARS-cov2 was also, but it does suggest that it is entirely possible and likely. MERS and the original SARS-cov are examples. There is little doubt that humanity being in close proximity to animals leads to diseases crossing species. You do not need to go down the conspiracy black hole to explain how covid19 started.
Its a bit like looking at the current UAP flap in the US and forgetting all the other (UFO) flaps over the years. There is nothing different to the current flap to what has been seen before.
One problem is the wet market doesn't explain it. Genetic evidence is the virus emerged Oct-Nov and there are a couple of known cases from before the wet market cluster. Neither SARS-COV2 nor any similar virus have been found at the market and only 2/3 of the initial outbreak has been linked to the market.
So it looks like the market was a super-spreader event not the origin.
The likeliest explanation is that the engineered virus - remember: DESIGNED to be more infectious in humans - leaked from the low level insecure BSL2 bat lab at the Wuhan CDC. Probably it spread amongst lab workers first - there is a hospital next door which (IIRC) had some really early cases too
At this point it’s quite possible no one yet realised the severity of the illness, maybe they didn’t even notice the outbreak (it is quite similar to flu)
Then of those early infected lab workers went to the very nearby market (as you do). Voila, the market is the super spreader - a perfect vector
There are many variables here but if I had to put half my weekly salary on a PARTICULAR chain of events it would be that
In other news, I found it rather refreshing to hear Bronson Battersby's sister declaring that she doesn't blame Social Services at all for his death, and expressing sympathy for the difficult job that social workers have. The tabloids will be disappointed.
Sometimes something happens and it's no-one's particular fault; or very minor fault is placed very widely.
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
A decade ago one of my old friends died, probably of a drug overdose mixed with alcohol. It was a month before he was found in his flat, because of the smell in a heatwave. These things happen when social networks are patchy.
During covid, Ambulance asking us to gain entry to a property to check on people that had missed appointments or hadn't been in contact with family or friends for a while significantly increased, to the point where I was breaking into properties a couple of times a week. Mostly, the place was empty or we interrupted someone asleep in front of the telly, but there was a fair number of people who had died, either natural causes or accidents. Ended up having a cuppa with quite a few lonely people as we arranged to get their door repaired.
I don't want to go all American - "Thanks for your service" - but good job, I'm glad and grateful there are people like you in the emergency services doing stuff like this.
Just reading up on the Bronson Battersby story, not immediately obvious to me what should have been done unless the police are going to immediately force entry any time a social worker reports they don't get an answer at a property. Perhaps the police are to blame here - as I say though doesn't look immediately obvious to me. A truly heartbreaking story
You have inadvertently put your finger on the problem. It should have been immediately obvious what to do, both for the police and (separately) for the social workers because there should have been (but almost certainly wasn't) a special procedure written to cover these circumstances. Instead, both agencies seem to have relied on no doubt stressed and overworked people at the bottom of the scale to think something up on the spur of the moment.
It is what I like to call the 4am problem in computer operations, or what the late medical author and anaesthetist Richard Gordon meant about the index having an entry "blue, patient turning, what to do".
It doesn't seem that there was a concern about child neglect or abuse, more a supportive approach by Social Workers helping a sixty year old with a heart condition look after a toddler. Presumably there was a reason that he was doing the childcare rather than his estranged partner.
So to break down the door because there was no answer at the first call would be a bit intrusive. They might have just popped to the shops or park.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Quite so. And this is why Rwanda
You can’t patrol an entire coastline like that. It would cost trillions
The only option is to deter people from even trying. Sending them off to Rwanda would do that, but for Rwanda to work you need absolute determination (and withdrawal from any confounding laws or courts like the ECHR). Then you have to make sure that everyone who crosses illegally goes to Rwanda, for several months if not years. No ifs no buts
This would work. Cruel but effective. Once people realise they are going to Rwanda within hours of reaching Britain they will stop coming and try some other country. Its what Australia did and they are basically the only country ever to tackle this problem with success
However the government is not attempting this. They are trying to send a few dozen to Rwanda - if that - in the forlorn hope that this will be enough of a deterrent in itself. Quite unlikely. And they are spending half a billion to make this feeble half arsed policy sort of work. Or not
Incidentally the EU is much more brutal in the med. it knowingly turns back boats and sends people to Libyan prisons or slavery
In the end, I think this will be solved with guns and bloodshed. This is a worldwide problem - see America - and in the end native populations will react with violence. Which js why something like Rwanda is worth attempting - to avoid that
Just reading up on the Bronson Battersby story, not immediately obvious to me what should have been done unless the police are going to immediately force entry any time a social worker reports they don't get an answer at a property. Perhaps the police are to blame here - as I say though doesn't look immediately obvious to me. A truly heartbreaking story
You have inadvertently put your finger on the problem. It should have been immediately obvious what to do, both for the police and (separately) for the social workers because there should have been (but almost certainly wasn't) a special procedure written to cover these circumstances. Instead, both agencies seem to have relied on no doubt stressed and overworked people at the bottom of the scale to think something up on the spur of the moment.
It is what I like to call the 4am problem in computer operations, or what the late medical author and anaesthetist Richard Gordon meant about the index having an entry "blue, patient turning, what to do".
It doesn't seem that there was a concern about child neglect or abuse, more a supportive approach by Social Workers helping a sixty year old with a heart condition look after a toddler. Presumably there was a reason that he was doing the childcare rather than his estranged partner.
So to break down the door because there was no answer at the first call would be a bit intrusive. They might have just popped to the shops or park.
It's a fine line. We'd spend a few minutes knocking on neighbours' doors seeing if they'd had any contact, maybe put a ladder up to an upstairs window for a peek, but our view was that if we were careful, the door can be repaired or replaced (our insurance covered it, and there were various companies that had contracts to do repairs/replace), we were getting into that property.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Quite so. And this is why Rwanda
You can’t patrol an entire coastline like that. It would cost trillions
The only option is to deter people from even trying. Sending them off to Rwanda would do that, but for Rwanda to work you need absolute determination (and withdrawal from any confounding laws or courts like the ECHR). Then you have to make sure that everyone who crosses illegally goes to Rwanda, for several months if not years. No ifs no buts
This would work. Cruel but effective. Once people realise they are going to Rwanda within hours of reaching Britain they will stop coming and try some other country. Its what Australia did and they are basically the only country ever to tackle this problem with success
However the government is not attempting this. They are trying to send a few dozen to Rwanda - if that - in the forlorn hope that this will be enough of a deterrent in itself. Quite unlikely. And they are spending half a billion to make this feeble half arsed policy sort of work. Or not
Incidentally the EU is much more brutal in the med. it knowingly turns back boats and sends people to Libyan prisons or slavery
In the end, I think this will be solved with guns and bloodshed. This is a worldwide problem - see America - and in the end native populations will react with violence. Which js why something like Rwanda is worth attempting - to avoid that
But HMG is too spineless to do it properly
Obviously the aura of a mad despot murderous dictator is rubbing off on you.
Allie Hodgkins-Brown @AllieHBNews · 28m Friday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “Nato warns of war with Russia in the next 20 years” #TomorrowsPapersToday
---
But Sunak and co remain asleep at the wheel, endlessly prattling and gyraping about Rwanda and little dinghies whilst we sleepwalk into the next world war with our military woefully underfunded and the public oblivious.
When the US NATO tide goes out under Trump 2.0 we will see who was not wearing military trunks.
This will be what the history books say about Tory 2010-2024. Not boats. Not migration. Not crap about how many people are faking mental illness to get benefits.
But defence.
And Russia.
The Russian army is currently being destroyed in Ukraine. It is burning its way through the very considerable reserves it had in storage of both MBTs and lighter armoured vehicles as well as artillery shells. At current rates they will be completely exhausted within 2 years.
Russian conventional forces have been shown to be a paper tiger, poorly trained, very poorly equipped and poorly led. If they took on Poland they would get their arses kicked. Suggesting that they are somehow capable of taking on even the dilapidated forces of western Europe is a joke.
We do need to increase defence spending but we need to do that in the main by supporting Ukraine. Although we need to recognise the way war has evolved through drone based warfare and update our forces to reflect that as well as massively increasing our ammunition reserves the suggestion that what is left of the Russian army is a threat to us is simply wrong.
I of course agree that the distraction of this Rwanda/small boat nonsense is a very peculiar kind of stupid.
One area that we need to invest in is ammunition production. The capability to produce "on the fly" has been almost eliminated for many weapons. A stockpile of x artillery shells is one thing. The capability to make y a week (or whatever) is another.
Another is the childish "unique requirements" stuff that results in weird/impossible designs. The new SPG project has been held up by demanding requirements to make it airmobile, armoured like a tank, massive autoloader capacit etc etc.
I did read recently that UK artillery shell production had been increased 8 fold, albeit from a truly pitiful base. What we have seen in Ukraine on both sides is the incredible speed at which ammunition and equipment is depleted. So many modern systems have phenomenal fire rates but there is a consequence for that.
Much harder to ramp up production now with our diminished manufacturing base and higher tech weapons.
You can draw a line from the shell crisis to modern times via the organic chemist Chaim Weizmann who played an important part improving explosive production and lobbying a grateful government of the need for a state of Israel, and hence the Balfour Declaration. Weizmann later became the first President of Israel.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Simple answer is that there very probably isn't.
But then, I'm not the government that has staked what's left of its reputation on stopping the boats. One of the legends in the national unconciousness is about the foolishness of trying to stop unstoppable things from the sea.
(Slightly less simple answer. If you want to stop the boats, because they are terrible, undercut them by processing on the French coast.
If you want to stop the people, bear in mind that there are bigger flows to worry about, such as holiday travellers just forgetting to leave. But a good place to start is the black economy that many end up in. And you can best do that by going after the employers. Another is to make the desperate places in the world less desperate.
But long story short, there is nothing more pathetic than impotent shouting and coming up with cruelties that you can't impliment for want of better ideas or an ability to change the subject. Which is there the government has landed itself.)
Just reading up on the Bronson Battersby story, not immediately obvious to me what should have been done unless the police are going to immediately force entry any time a social worker reports they don't get an answer at a property. Perhaps the police are to blame here - as I say though doesn't look immediately obvious to me. A truly heartbreaking story
You have inadvertently put your finger on the problem. It should have been immediately obvious what to do, both for the police and (separately) for the social workers because there should have been (but almost certainly wasn't) a special procedure written to cover these circumstances. Instead, both agencies seem to have relied on no doubt stressed and overworked people at the bottom of the scale to think something up on the spur of the moment.
It is what I like to call the 4am problem in computer operations, or what the late medical author and anaesthetist Richard Gordon meant about the index having an entry "blue, patient turning, what to do".
It doesn't seem that there was a concern about child neglect or abuse, more a supportive approach by Social Workers helping a sixty year old with a heart condition look after a toddler. Presumably there was a reason that he was doing the childcare rather than his estranged partner.
So to break down the door because there was no answer at the first call would be a bit intrusive. They might have just popped to the shops or park.
And social services made two calls to the police, and later the social worker obtained a key from the landlord. Yes, we know that. My point is not about who should have done what. My point is that there should already have been a written procedure for who should have done what.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
They could do Australian style tow backs. Pick up the refugees at sea, decant them into a lifeboat, tow it west into international waters and cut it loose just outside the French territorial limit with just enough fuel to get to France. Bung one of them a few thousand euros to drive the boat.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Simple answer is that there very probably isn't.
But then, I'm not the government that has staked what's left of its reputation on stopping the boats. One of the legends in the national unconciousness is about the foolishness of trying to stop unstoppable things from the sea.
(Slightly less simple answer. If you want to stop the boats, because they are terrible, undercut them by processing on the French coast.
If you want to stop the people, bear in mind that there are bigger flows to worry about, such as holiday travellers just forgetting to leave. But a good place to start is the black economy that many end up in. And you can best do that by going after the employers. Another is to make the desperate places in the world less desperate.
But long story short, there is nothing more pathetic than impotent shouting and coming up with cruelties that you can't impliment for want of better ideas or an ability to change the subject. Which is there the government has landed itself.)
"And you can best do that by going after the employers"
Yup
Once again
1) 100K fine per employee without legal right to work 2) Directors of companies personally liable - so no asset shells don't protect 3) 50% of fine give to whoever reports, upon conviction 4) If the reporting person is undocumented, give them indefinite leave to remain as well, upon conviction of the employer. 5) 6 month grace period until the law comes into force.
3)&4) would ensure a thriving trade in "doing" such employers. 2) will make the employers personal assets subject to this. 5) ensure that the courts wouldn't be clogged - employers will "sort out their employee paperwork". Unless they are stupid.
Immigration. My guess is there will be an influx of Indians who studied in America but now cannot find jobs in the United States as employers snap up experienced techies laid off in their thousands by Google and other tech behemoths, in preference to foreign graduates with no experience and who need H1B visa sponsorship.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Simple answer is that there very probably isn't.
But then, I'm not the government that has staked what's left of its reputation on stopping the boats. One of the legends in the national unconciousness is about the foolishness of trying to stop unstoppable things from the sea.
(Slightly less simple answer. If you want to stop the boats, because they are terrible, undercut them by processing on the French coast.
If you want to stop the people, bear in mind that there are bigger flows to worry about, such as holiday travellers just forgetting to leave. But a good place to start is the black economy that many end up in. And you can best do that by going after the employers. Another is to make the desperate places in the world less desperate.
But long story short, there is nothing more pathetic than impotent shouting and coming up with cruelties that you can't impliment for want of better ideas or an ability to change the subject. Which is there the government has landed itself.)
Suspect there's a big difference between holiday visa overstayers and boat people in terms of likely criminal behaviour and so on. They have to qualify for a visa first, after all.
The visa overstayers are probably more of a burden on the NHS though - is anyone checking Grandma's documents on admission to hospital?
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
They could do Australian style tow backs. Pick up the refugees at sea, decant them into a lifeboat, tow it west into international waters and cut it loose just outside the French territorial limit with just enough fuel to get to France. Bung one of them a few thousand euros to drive the boat.
The boats in question are marginally seaworthy. A tow is a dangerous thing, at sea, with full cooperation
There have already been cases, in the Med, of making the boat unseaworthy and then calling the authorities. Encourage that approach, and you will end up with a large number of dead people.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
Simple answer is that there very probably isn't.
But then, I'm not the government that has staked what's left of its reputation on stopping the boats. One of the legends in the national unconciousness is about the foolishness of trying to stop unstoppable things from the sea.
(Slightly less simple answer. If you want to stop the boats, because they are terrible, undercut them by processing on the French coast.
If you want to stop the people, bear in mind that there are bigger flows to worry about, such as holiday travellers just forgetting to leave. But a good place to start is the black economy that many end up in. And you can best do that by going after the employers. Another is to make the desperate places in the world less desperate.
But long story short, there is nothing more pathetic than impotent shouting and coming up with cruelties that you can't impliment for want of better ideas or an ability to change the subject. Which is there the government has landed itself.)
"And you can best do that by going after the employers"
Yup
Once again
1) 100K fine per employee without legal right to work 2) Directors of companies personally liable - so no asset shells don't protect 3) 50% of fine give to whoever reports, upon conviction 4) If the reporting person is undocumented, give them indefinite leave to remain as well, upon conviction of the employer. 5) 6 month grace period until the law comes into force.
3)&4) would ensure a thriving trade in "doing" such employers. 2) will make the employers personal assets subject to this. 5) ensure that the courts wouldn't be clogged - employers will "sort out their employee paperwork". Unless they are stupid.
You will make it harder for legitimate Britons to find work. My international and global employers had to squint a bit at the paperwork because I had neither driving licence nor passport to prove my identity and right to work.
Expect another mini-surge in Reform next week as the renewed Rwanda coverage feeds through. Then a dip because I think they are overdue a dip as the media moves on from immigration for a while until the boating season starts in spring.
Early start for the regatta this year. 15 boats/624 people this week. Sort it out, Sunak.
There's roughly 275km of coastline along which a 'small boat' might realistically land.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
They could do Australian style tow backs. Pick up the refugees at sea, decant them into a lifeboat, tow it west into international waters and cut it loose just outside the French territorial limit with just enough fuel to get to France. Bung one of them a few thousand euros to drive the boat.
The boats in question are marginally seaworthy. A tow is a dangerous thing, at sea, with full cooperation
There have already been cases, in the Med, of making the boat unseaworthy and then calling the authorities. Encourage that approach, and you will end up with a large number of dead people.
On patrolling the French side of the channel, physically destroying small boats before they set off. I think it's perfectly possible to do so*, the main issue is that France has no incentive to do so (The opposite is true !) - so they don't.
* Cameras every hundred metres or so; French officers on standby every so often with dinghy destroying equipment. It could be funded by the UK directly tbh
The UK the only G20 member who will no longer have a domestic steel producer . So in effect the Tory government spent 500 million pounds to lose 3,000 jobs and make it beholdent to foreign steel imports !
Comments
But if you want 'massively' more then that takes time and business investment - it takes years for business to relocate on a significant basis.
Don't say it too loudly sir, or everyone will be demanding them.
Bad luck, an accident, carelessness or any of the things that happen in everyday life could have been responsible.
In fact I'll suggest that such things happen regularly but with little or no effect.
Whereas in Wuhan there was a combination of things which led to disaster.
https://x.com/harryenfield6/status/1748276967575630308?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-x-updates-policy-to-prohibit-promotion-of-adult-content-on-platform
this novel bat coronavirus, weirdly adapted and dangerous for humans, started in the ONLY city in the world which has - or had - a laboratory dedicated to taking novel bat coronaviruses and making them weirdly adaptive and dangerous for humans
What - in gods green earth - are the chances of that? Its slam dunk for most people
But as the years have passed the evidence has gone from circumstantial to actual. Eg we now have - thanks to persistent and dogged hacks and online scholars - hard evidence that the researchers at those Wuhan labs were specifically asking to do the peculiar furin cleavage site engineering which is so notable and unusual about the virus Sarscov2 - they requested funding to do this exact research
And - as very recent evidence shows - when they were turned down they said Oh fuck it, we will do it in Wuhan anyway. This is all documented and undisputed
Meanwhile the evidence for it naturally emerging on the market 300 yards from the most unsafe lab with the bats is precisely zero. They told us it was bats. The market doesn’t sell bats. They told us it was pangolins. Market has no pangolins. They told us it was raccoons. They can’t find the raccoon. They can’t find anything in the market - even as the bat lab sits there, 3 minutes walk away
What does a sane person deduce from that? In all seriousness, it came from the bloody lab. Get over it
I also fear this thought also prevents some from taking 'lab leak' as seriously as it should.
And get someone to fish them out.
I’ve left - and who can blame me - and I’m now walking through Pol Pot’s childhood home - Wat Bovey temple. It’s nice
The tabloids will be disappointed.
It is plausible either way. And that is quite damning of the Chinese in itself.
I've been seeing lots of adult material on Twitter recently - and before anyone asks, I wasn't looking for anything dodgy.
It's a problem Musk's created.
Sometimes bad things are simply the result of a tragic accident, and there’s not anyone to “blame” for the outcome.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/us-oil-production-hits-record-highs-what-it-means-for-opec?srnd=oddlots
“From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is explicitly saying that the existence of the state of Israel is incompatible with their objective. How else would you interpret that quote?
Netanyahu’s comment “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” is simply a geographic description. It is not necessarily incompatible with a separate Palestinian state in part of that area.
A denial that suggests they might have something to hide.
They would have been better off saying "we don't know, all possibilities are being considered".
https://x.com/therstott/status/1741119026825134328?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Why are we even debating this? Bibi was explicitly rejecting a 2-state solution.
Their reaction wasn’t “oh god this is bad and yes there is a lab doing bat virus research 300 yards from the first bat virus cases, we need to examine all avenues and get to the truth”
Instead they said “it came from the market, that is the only possible theory. Anyone who thinks or says it came from the lab is a racist conspiracist.” That’s literally what they said to the world, and they persuaded Facebook and Twitter to delete any comments about lab leak FOR A YEAR
And, on top of that, as we now know from FOIA’d emails, even as fauci and friends were saying this shite in public, in private they were discussing the very real possibility that it came from the lab
That right there is a cover up, for which people should do time - WHATEVER the actual origins
The details of this case will be known, but it might just be that no-one would have found them in time, especially over the Christmas / New Year period.
What may be useful is a conversation about the way people can go days or weeks with no human contact; no-one to raise alarm bells that something might be wrong. And that conversation might focus on society rather than authorities.
(Incidentally, a friend's elderly mother had a fall recently. She lives on her own, and when she pressed her medical alert bracelet, it did not work. She had to drag herself into another room to get to a phone. If we are going to rely on technology, we need to ensure it works.)
I could get Batwoman Shi on here on a live webcam admitting that “yes we did it, it came from our lab” even as she danced semi naked with special tinsel attached to her nipples and you would still refuse to believe it even as you did some weird little scotch orgasm into your oaten breakfast
Something Leon is very guilty of.
New on the Swingometer - "Stop the Boats has failed" - I take a look at what Sunak's campaign was designed to achieve politically. It has failed on every yardstick.
https://t.co/VArSY5KWLg
@JamesDAustin
This is an excellent review of how badly the 'Stop the Boats' has failed politically, as well as policy-wise.
Just a year of the govt punching itself in the face. Remarkable. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a unforced, politically damaging error. And they're just... carrying on
About 3 days later he signed the Lancet letter denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy
“What the scientists behind The Science REALLY thought about a lab leak
ANTHONY FAUCI, Feb. 4, 2020: Surely that [gain of function research] wouldn’t be done in a [low-security] BSL-2 lab?
JEREMY FARRAR “Wild West”
See here. The emails
https://x.com/alexberenson/status/1595129703249371137?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Arab Israelis already exist in a democratic and free society.
Rejecting a 2 state solution is not the same as genocide
“Facebook lifts ban on posts claiming Covid-19 was man-made
Social network says policy comes ‘in light of ongoing investigations into the origin’ of virus
The change follows a Wall Street Journal report that US intelligence sources believe there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of the “lab leak” theory.“
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-lifts-ban-on-posts-claiming-covid-19-was-man-made
I was just amending your comment “BSL2 (ie unsafe)”
ETA: But yes, sometimes bad things happen and no one is to blame. It's refreshing to see someone say that.
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/hackney-labour-cazenove-candidate-for-council-by-election-suspended/
It’s not been helped in the last couple of years, that these exhibitionists can now make serious money from “fan” sites, so many more of them are now working full-time, using free sites such as Twitter to advertise their paid “services”.
The news cycle hasn't been particularly Labour-favourable in recent weeks so their polling seems pretty resilient. It's been: PO scandal (largely neutral for Labour), Israel-Gaza (potentially negative for Labour), Immigration (neutral at best for them).
Little or no coverage of areas that would boost Labour VI: NHS waiting lists, schools falling down, infrastructure being cancelled, economic woes, failures in the justice system. Economic and inflation news has been fairly boring recently and this week's uptick in inflation went largely unremarked.
The virus being man-made is different from a lab leak, which is different from the wet market hypothesis.
Above, you seamlessly move from 'lab leak' to 'man-made'.
(It is perfectly possible to make a scenario where it is all three: a man-made virus that leaked from the lab to the wet market. But that seems very unlikely from what we know atm. But IANAE...)
What am I doing wrong pls.
I’m virtually always right and contradicting me gets us nowhere. Despite this, I see the Law flouted constantly, sometimes on a daily basis
Bibi might go for something like Transkei or Bophuthatswana, but, yeah, not what most people would call a separate Palestinian state.
https://x.com/graceyldn/status/1748039689578201454?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
For example, I keep being asked whether I will be getting a dog (as I live alone at present). My choice is not to do so as I am aware I seem to have a serious (hospital admission) mainly diabetic-related medical episode once a decade or so - about 3 since 2000 2 of which were by causes outside my control such as random infections which had serious consequences. In such circs a pet would potentially be left loose in the house, which I do not think of as an acceptable risk.
This also feeds back into atomisation of households over the last two generations, seen in the trend in average household size. Having a two-person or more household (and some sort of neighbours / local friends network with permission to check up) is a free insurance policy. I'd put that into debates about encouraging use of spare bedrooms for lodgers for small households in underoccupied houses.
Coming out of last year's leukemia diagnosis, I need to reflect on what measures to put in place to manage this as I get older. I already live within walking distance of everything I could ever need by deliberate decision, which is a real problem for people getting older living in suburban service-deserts or remote communities.
1 How many people have Rwanda agreed to take each year? (They've not signed up to take everyone... they're not muppets.)
2 What's the plan for the others?
“Facebook’s Lab-Leak About-Face”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-lab-leak-about-face-11622154198
Fwiw the virus that leaked was almost certainly “man-made” - to the extent it has been fucked around with. That’s exactly what they were trying to do in Wuhan. Make more pathogenic viruses (gain of function) so they could then prepare vaccines if a virus like this ever escaped in the wild
This research was banned by Obama as being far too dangerous given the small benefits accrued. So fauci offshored it to China
Here’s a video of Peter Daszak of the Wuhan lab BOASTING of this research. “We are making killer coronaviruses”
He literally says exactly what they did. And - we now know - why we had a killer coronavirus pandemic which came out of Wuhan
https://x.com/noplacelikeroam/status/1402596573515763717?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
If you were going to do gain of function research and aim to make something that may well prove dangerous, even the wild west Chinese scientists are not stupid enough to do this without precautions.
The origin of all previous pandemics has been zoonotic. That does not mean that SARS-cov2 was also, but it does suggest that it is entirely possible and likely. MERS and the original SARS-cov are examples. There is little doubt that humanity being in close proximity to animals leads to diseases crossing species. You do not need to go down the conspiracy black hole to explain how covid19 started.
Its a bit like looking at the current UAP flap in the US and forgetting all the other (UFO) flaps over the years. There is nothing different to the current flap to what has been seen before.
You’re being as partisan as those defending
Andy Macdonalds tweet: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
In fact more so because Macdonald explicitly stated that he was supportive of both Israeli and Palestinian freedom.
And you haven’t engaged with the point about self-determination
I’ve just this minute posted the video where Peter Daszak - co-head of the Wuhan labs - boasts (pre pandemic) that taking bat viruses and making them more pathogenic is what they are doing. That is gain of function. That is how they got funding
I invoke the Law of Leon so you don’t embarrass yourself further
If this is right the courts will act to fill the lacuna.
BTW I think we are about at the stage where everyone knows the farce must stop, but it is essential that it is someone else who is to blame for stopping it.
So it looks like the market was a super-spreader event not the origin.
How do you suggest Sunak - or anyone else- might realistically 'sort it out'? A long chain link fence down the centre line of the channel? Armed guards every 100 yards on every south coat beach with shoot to kill orders? Royal Navy cutters bobbing around every 5 km with dozens spotters with powerful binoculars and a large deck mounted gun ready to blow the migrants to smithereens?
There's an equivalent length of coastline that the French would need to patrol continuously - to stop the departures, arguably they would need even more manpower than it would take to repel a boat at our beaches.
Where is the realistic way of stopping determined but small groups of individuals who can start their journeys anywhere along the coast?
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that we should just roll over and do nothing, but anyone who complains about something not being done or something not being done right never seems to suggest anything better.
It is what I like to call the 4am problem in computer operations, or what the late medical author and anaesthetist Richard Gordon meant about the index having an entry "blue, patient turning, what to do".
in humans - leaked from the low level insecure BSL2 bat lab at the Wuhan CDC. Probably it spread amongst lab workers first - there is a hospital next door which (IIRC) had some really early cases too
At this point it’s quite possible no one yet realised the severity of the illness, maybe they didn’t even notice the outbreak (it is quite similar to flu)
Then of those early infected lab workers went to the very nearby market (as you do). Voila, the market is the super spreader - a perfect vector
There are many variables here but if I had to put half my weekly salary on a PARTICULAR chain of events it would be that
So to break down the door because there was no answer at the first call would be a bit intrusive. They might have just popped to the shops or park.
You can’t patrol an entire coastline like that. It would cost trillions
The only option is to deter people from even trying. Sending them off to Rwanda would do that, but for Rwanda to work you need absolute determination (and withdrawal from any confounding laws or courts like the ECHR). Then you have to make sure that everyone who crosses illegally goes to Rwanda, for several months if not years. No ifs no buts
This would work. Cruel but effective. Once people realise they are going to Rwanda within hours of reaching Britain they will stop coming and try some other country. Its what Australia did and they are basically the only country ever to tackle this problem with success
However the government is not attempting this. They are trying to send a few dozen to Rwanda - if that - in the forlorn hope that this will be enough of a deterrent in itself. Quite unlikely. And they are spending half a billion to make this feeble half arsed policy sort of work. Or not
Incidentally the EU is much more brutal in the med. it knowingly turns back boats and sends people to Libyan prisons or slavery
In the end, I think this will be solved with guns and bloodshed. This is a worldwide problem - see America - and in the end native populations will react with violence. Which js why something like Rwanda is worth attempting - to avoid that
But HMG is too spineless to do it properly
But then, I'm not the government that has staked what's left of its reputation on stopping the boats. One of the legends in the national unconciousness is about the foolishness of trying to stop unstoppable things from the sea.
(Slightly less simple answer. If you want to stop the boats, because they are terrible, undercut them by processing on the French coast.
If you want to stop the people, bear in mind that there are bigger flows to worry about, such as holiday travellers just forgetting to leave. But a good place to start is the black economy that many end up in. And you can best do that by going after the employers. Another is to make the desperate places in the world less desperate.
But long story short, there is nothing more pathetic than impotent shouting and coming up with cruelties that you can't impliment for want of better ideas or an ability to change the subject. Which is there the government has landed itself.)
Yup
Once again
1) 100K fine per employee without legal right to work
2) Directors of companies personally liable - so no asset shells don't protect
3) 50% of fine give to whoever reports, upon conviction
4) If the reporting person is undocumented, give them indefinite leave to remain as well, upon conviction of the employer.
5) 6 month grace period until the law comes into force.
3)&4) would ensure a thriving trade in "doing" such employers. 2) will make the employers personal assets subject to this.
5) ensure that the courts wouldn't be clogged - employers will "sort out their employee paperwork". Unless they are stupid.
The visa overstayers are probably more of a burden on the NHS though - is anyone checking Grandma's documents on admission to hospital?
There have already been cases, in the Med, of making the boat unseaworthy and then calling the authorities. Encourage that approach, and you will end up with a large number of dead people.
* Cameras every hundred metres or so; French officers on standby every so often with dinghy destroying equipment. It could be funded by the UK directly tbh
Pathetic and shameful .
The testing services have now closed and you can no longer register or report the results from NHS COVID-19 tests.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-testing-services
A milestone in the pandemic timeline or a badly mixed metaphor?
https://twitter.com/unfetteredmind1/status/1748258922304098511/photo/1