Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
I know it is pedantic but Diamond Princess is not a boat, it is a wonderful ship which my wife and I spent 33 days on sailing from Vancouver to China 5 years ago
The captain would not be impressed by suggesting it is a boat
All together now...
"A boat is something you pick up and put on a ship"
(unless it's a submarine. Then it's always a boat)
Well, I'm sure Brendan feels that the only proper way to steer the genetic development of a society is to have your army seize a town full of the people you don't like and then slaughter all the men aged between 15 and 70.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
I am no expert in the area, so there is nothing behind my assertion.
But... As I understand it, virus's continually mutate, in all directions. The more deadly viruses tend to kill there host quickly therefor limiting there ability to pass on to the next generation, where as, the milder mutations, will let the host live a bit longer, possibly with milder systems to start with, giving more time to spread to new people.
and again I am ready to be corrected, but i think this pattern is fairly consistent, its just a case of how quickly does it get less deadly and by how much does it get less deadly.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
I know it is pedantic but Diamond Princess is not a boat, it is a wonderful ship which my wife and I spent 33 days on sailing from Vancouver to China 5 years ago
The captain would not be impressed by suggesting it is a boat
All together now...
"A boat is something you pick up and put on a ship"
(unless it's a submarine. Then it's always a boat)
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Generally, diseases mutate into less harmful forms. If you kill all of your hosts, you're like an animal that destroys the habitat your species relies upon to survive.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
In my campaign against coronavirus fearmongering, I'd like to point PB-ers to THIS piece of research, which claims that most male victims of the virus, even if they recover, will be rendered infertile.
"The study results showed that the new coronavirus expressed potent pathogenicity to both renal and testicular tissues with resultant lesions.
The damaged testicular tissues could lead to infertility in most of the male patients."
If, as some experts predict, the virus is going to infect 40-70% of humanity, this means we must anticipate a complete crash in global population, and the breakdown of normal human civilisation, as females compete for the few remaining fertile males in reverse Handmaid's Tale-like scenes of violent dystopia.
Apart from that, it is just like normal flu.
"Could". Before you get too excited, you might also note that the more severe cases seem to be in the elderly. And remember that you too might be susceptible.
Labour has better qualified candidates for both positions - they have, for their own reasons, chosen not to put themselves forward. Almost certainly because of the leftward shift in the selectorate meaning that they feel it a pointless exercise.
We need a strong opposition. Our system needs it.
But there isn't strength in what has been put before the Labour membership.
The Deputy candidates are even worse. Butler's recent pronouncements are symptomatic of the problem.
I know the process of renewal takes time - but this is painful to watch (from any political perspective)
Yes, you can only vote for what is on offer. But this is not a strong line-up of candidates.
(And yes, the Conservative Party when through it post-1997)
Hmm. I think you might be using the word "quality" to mean "closer to your political views". Or perhaps you are chemically unable to view a Labour leader with any positivity. @Cookie below recalls how people were dissing all the 2015 candidates. I find this telling. I also remember as if it were yesterday the widespread labeling of a moderate, highly intelligent, super articulate, palpably decent man by the name of Ed Miliband as geeky and weak and verging on Marxist. So, you know.
There have been a number of senior figures over recent decades whom I could respect even if I disagreed with their politics.
Amazingly Prescott was one of them - until he became deputy. I always had time for Denis Healey.
Blair was a different kettle of fish. He was a tad too smarmy for my liking - but he was skilled at winning elections and was prepared to challenge Labour on some core issues in order to deliver that electability.
I was gobsmacked when Labour went for Ed over David. I still think it was the wrong choice and we won't be where we are now if it had gone differently.
So I can find positives within the Labour movement.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
I agree with you, though, I can't see the 20% one (or one with only 250 sampled) - this is my source:
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
I agree with you, though, I can't see the 20% one (or one with only 250 sampled) - this is my source:
I think that tomorrow evening's debate may change things more than debates usually do, simply because this will be the first major occasion where Bloomberg will be having to present himself and defend himself in public in a forum which isn't under his control. The others are going to be attacking him from multiple angles.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Generally, diseases mutate into less harmful forms. If you kill all of your hosts, you're like an animal that destroys the habitat your species relies upon to survive.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
In my campaign against coronavirus fearmongering, I'd like to point PB-ers to THIS piece of research, which claims that most male victims of the virus, even if they recover, will be rendered infertile.
"The study results showed that the new coronavirus expressed potent pathogenicity to both renal and testicular tissues with resultant lesions.
The damaged testicular tissues could lead to infertility in most of the male patients."
If, as some experts predict, the virus is going to infect 40-70% of humanity, this means we must anticipate a complete crash in global population, and the breakdown of normal human civilisation, as females compete for the few remaining fertile males in reverse Handmaid's Tale-like scenes of violent dystopia.
Apart from that, it is just like normal flu.
Sorry did you say you were campaigning AGAINST coronavirus fearmongering?
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
I am no expert in the area, so there is nothing behind my assertion.
But... As I understand it, virus's continually mutate, in all directions. The more deadly viruses tend to kill there host quickly therefor limiting there ability to pass on to the next generation, where as, the milder mutations, will let the host live a bit longer, possibly with milder systems to start with, giving more time to spread to new people.
and again I am ready to be corrected, but i think this pattern is fairly consistent, its just a case of how quickly does it get less deadly and by how much does it get less deadly.
Natural selection should ensure that the less deadly mutations are more likely to live long enough to propagate themselves. It isn’t in any parasite’s interest to kill off its carrier too quickly.
So I guess the hope is that a milder version arises from a mutation, spreads more quickly (because people carry on with their lives while carrying) yet gives immunity to the original deadlier version. Some expert on the radio was saying something along these lines, as best I recall it.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
What would be the British Polling Council’s views on headline polls with such small (c.250) sample sizes?
To be fair, if you have a representative sample, then 250 people is probably enough.
But it's really, really hard to get a representative sample.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Either is possible, and Coronavirus mutated much more slowly than Flu viruses, but generally viruses become less virulent over time.
There may be some evidence of this already. The mortality rate in Hubei is 2.9% compared with cases in the rest of China at 0.4%. Cases outside Cina suggest this too.
Possibly this is just a time lag effect, possibly just the health services in Hubei being overwhelmed, or possibly less severe disease. We don't know yet.
As a fifty something a mortality rate of 1.3% isn't great. Perhaps eadric will leave a rich young widow with his casual attitude to these things.
I've already had it so I am immune. Tho I may now be infertile (see below)
"Honey, you don't need to worry about contraception, I'm almost certainly infertile since I had Coronavirus!"
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Generally, diseases mutate into less harmful forms. If you kill all of your hosts, you're like an animal that destroys the habitat your species relies upon to survive.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
In my campaign against coronavirus fearmongering, I'd like to point PB-ers to THIS piece of research, which claims that most male victims of the virus, even if they recover, will be rendered infertile.
"The study results showed that the new coronavirus expressed potent pathogenicity to both renal and testicular tissues with resultant lesions.
The damaged testicular tissues could lead to infertility in most of the male patients."
If, as some experts predict, the virus is going to infect 40-70% of humanity, this means we must anticipate a complete crash in global population, and the breakdown of normal human civilisation, as females compete for the few remaining fertile males in reverse Handmaid's Tale-like scenes of violent dystopia.
Apart from that, it is just like normal flu.
Nice to know that there is a potential upside from the virus.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
I agree with you, though, I can't see the 20% one (or one with only 250 sampled) - this is my source:
I'm also increasingly cautious of people who say "Biden". To me that is now just a way of saying "I'm not paying much attention to the race, and went be voting in the primary/caucus"
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
I am no expert in the area, so there is nothing behind my assertion.
But... As I understand it, virus's continually mutate, in all directions. The more deadly viruses tend to kill there host quickly therefor limiting there ability to pass on to the next generation, where as, the milder mutations, will let the host live a bit longer, possibly with milder systems to start with, giving more time to spread to new people.
and again I am ready to be corrected, but i think this pattern is fairly consistent, its just a case of how quickly does it get less deadly and by how much does it get less deadly.
Natural selection should ensure that the less deadly mutations are more likely to live long enough to propagate themselves. It isn’t in any parasite’s interest to kill off its carrier too quickly.
So I guess the hope is that a milder version arises from a mutation, spreads more quickly (because people carry on with their lives while carrying) yet gives immunity to the original deadlier version. Some expert on the radio was saying something along these lines, as best I recall it.
Smallpox coexisted for centuries (or more) with cowpox...
The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.
@Mexicanpete, assuming you're in the know, what form does the EU's 'non-recommendation' of dredging take? The EU has a lot of form on enforcing unpopular poplicies through (admittedly willing) national organisations. Especially regarding water.
In a nutshell the EU might fine you if you dredge and disturb prescribed wildlife/habitats. So it doesn't blanket ban dredging but if you dredge and upset the Great Crested Newts you could be in big trouble.
The argument often used by anti-EU types is that flooding as we are currently experiencing is the fault of the EU who stop us from dredging rivers and streams. This is not really true, however it sounds better than saying we don't dredge much because the Environment Agency, Sepa, NRW and NIEA are woefully underfunded.
Unfortunately the layout of their pages seems to have been given to some spotty 13-year old who thinks it's cool to hide virtually all of the information behind twist-downs, and then when you do twist-down to see the data, one poll at a time, you are faced with a screen which is nearly all white space with the actual data displayed downwards in a single column so you can't compare the polls. It is a textbook example of disastrous design.
The same spotty geek unfortunately also seems to have wrecked the pages displaying the model's forecasts, forcing you to click on each name in turn to see the data for each candidate, one at a time.
There have been a number of senior figures over recent decades whom I could respect even if I disagreed with their politics.
Amazingly Prescott was one of them - until he became deputy. I always had time for Denis Healey.
Blair was a different kettle of fish. He was a tad too smarmy for my liking - but he was skilled at winning elections and was prepared to challenge Labour on some core issues in order to deliver that electability.
I was gobsmacked when Labour went for Ed over David. I still think it was the wrong choice and we won't be where we are now if it had gone differently.
So I can find positives within the Labour movement.
OK I believe you thousands wouldn't - as my old gran used to say. Anyway, it's going to be Starmer. So he's the one you'll be able to weigh up against Boris Johnson over the next few years in terms of things like integrity, competence, and likelihood to act in the broad national interest as opposed to his own. I don't think you'll need to use too many fingers.
Unfortunately the layout of their pages seems to have been given to some spotty 13-year old who thinks it's cool to hide virtually all of the information behind twist-downs, and then when you do twist-down to see the data, one poll at a time, you are faced with a screen which is nearly all white space with the actual data displayed downwards in a single column so you can't compare the polls. It is a textbook example of disastrous design.
The same spotty geek unfortunately also seems to have wrecked the pages displaying the model's forecasts, forcing you to click on each name in turn to see the data for each candidate, one at a time.
Forget the Canada model or the Australian model, Gaby Hinsliffe has come up with the definitive answer to the trade talks conundrum: the Feline model:
Anyone who has ever opened a door for a cat that is clearly asking to go out, only for the cat to stay firmly put, knows how this one works. Cats don’t want to go out in the rain and get soaked-through so much as they want the option to go out, freely and sovereignly, at any point without the indignity of squeezing through a catflap. From a cat’s perspective too, doors are an insufferable brake on their global ambitions; but once the door is open, it is the cat’s business whether it just chooses to stay in the warm most of the time.
Wait, Mayor Pete used to work at McKinsey? How has he got this far in the nomination process without hat turning into a really horrible situation for him?
Because the dem party is even more bourgeois than Labour?
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
I agree with you, though, I can't see the 20% one (or one with only 250 sampled) - this is my source:
I think that tomorrow evening's debate may change things more than debates usually do, simply because this will be the first major occasion where Bloomberg will be having to present himself and defend himself in public in a forum which isn't under his control. The others are going to be attacking him from multiple angles.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
I think sending people to Kamchatka is probably also likely to result in some negative headlines.
But at least I now know where Kamchatka is ...
This is an unrefereed, non peer reviewed journal, which reckons the fatality rate is quite a lot higher than 2%:
"we estimated that the number of infected individuals during early epidemic double every 2.4 days, and the R0 value is likely to be between 4.7 and 6.6. We further show that quarantine and contact tracing of symptomatic individuals alone may not be effective and early, strong control measures are needed to stop transmission of the virus."
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Either is possible, and Coronavirus mutated much more slowly than Flu viruses, but generally viruses become less virulent over time.
There may be some evidence of this already. The mortality rate in Hubei is 2.9% compared with cases in the rest of China at 0.4%. Cases outside Cina suggest this too.
Possibly this is just a time lag effect, possibly just the health services in Hubei being overwhelmed, or possibly less severe disease. We don't know yet.
As a fifty something a mortality rate of 1.3% isn't great. Perhaps eadric will leave a rich young widow with his casual attitude to these things.
I've already had it so I am immune. Tho I may now be infertile (see below)
Did you ACTUALLY really have Covid-19 though? I mean, though, really? Properly diagnosed? Or did you just come back from Thailand with a heavy cold?
If you did have the real deal: please describe in detail.
The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.
@Mexicanpete, assuming you're in the know, what form does the EU's 'non-recommendation' of dredging take? The EU has a lot of form on enforcing unpopular poplicies through (admittedly willing) national organisations. Especially regarding water.
In a nutshell the EU might fine you if you dredge and disturb prescribed wildlife/habitats. So it doesn't blanket ban dredging but if you dredge and upset the Great Crested Newts you could be in big trouble.
The argument often used by anti-EU types is that flooding as we are currently experiencing is the fault of the EU who stop us from dredging rivers and streams. This is not really true, however it sounds better than saying we don't dredge much because the Environment Agency, Sepa, NRW and NIEA are woefully underfunded.
A quick Google tells me that an EU directive made several changes in the European Water Framework Directive that make dredging many times harder and more expensive. The designation of dredged silt as 'waste' rather than product that prevents it from being left on river banks for example, and the fact that any proposed dredging appears to require an extensive report to be submitted before it can be considered - that's quite apart from whether you're upsetting the newts or not. So it doesn't 'sound better', it is true. Yes, the directive has been gleefully implemented by overzealous UK agencies, but that was ever the case with EU regulation.
Once again, the EU issues a clear line, leaves the implementation to national Governments and agencies, ducks all responsibility when it comes to specifics -'Prevent dredging - moi?' and allows its fanboys as seen on the threads here to mock those crazy 'anti-EU types' who are actually making perfectly sensible cause and effect arguments. And then has the nerve to say that the EU has been unfairly maligned over the years!
If Boris has a shred of sense, he will DREDGE as soon as can be arranged, and he will tell people quite rightly that it is adherence to EU regulations that has restricted this activity up to now. It demonstrates just about everything he stands for.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Generally, diseases mutate into less harmful forms. If you kill all of your hosts, you're like an animal that destroys the habitat your species relies upon to survive.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
In my campaign against coronavirus fearmongering, I'd like to point PB-ers to THIS piece of research, which claims that most male victims of the virus, even if they recover, will be rendered infertile.
"The study results showed that the new coronavirus expressed potent pathogenicity to both renal and testicular tissues with resultant lesions.
The damaged testicular tissues could lead to infertility in most of the male patients."
If, as some experts predict, the virus is going to infect 40-70% of humanity, this means we must anticipate a complete crash in global population, and the breakdown of normal human civilisation, as females compete for the few remaining fertile males in reverse Handmaid's Tale-like scenes of violent dystopia.
Apart from that, it is just like normal flu.
I'm not sure that's what the research says.
If you get it real bad with serious side effects then in some male patients, maybe, it could cause infertility. But not most.
I see similar caveats as potential side effects of just about every serious medical drug going.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Either is possible, and Coronavirus mutated much more slowly than Flu viruses, but generally viruses become less virulent over time.
There may be some evidence of this already. The mortality rate in Hubei is 2.9% compared with cases in the rest of China at 0.4%. Cases outside Cina suggest this too.
Possibly this is just a time lag effect, possibly just the health services in Hubei being overwhelmed, or possibly less severe disease. We don't know yet.
As a fifty something a mortality rate of 1.3% isn't great. Perhaps eadric will leave a rich young widow with his casual attitude to these things.
I've already had it so I am immune. Tho I may now be infertile (see below)
Did you ACTUALLY really have Covid-19 though? I mean, though, really? Properly diagnosed? Or did you just come back from Thailand with a heavy cold?
If you did have the real deal: please describe in detail.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
The alternative is draconian quarantine of hundreds of millions of people, which causes intense misery, fucks the global economy, and doesn't seem to work that well, anyway. How many will die from lost growth, panic, riots?
There are no good choices. Are we sure we are making the least bad choice?
Let's hire some incels with huge MtG decks to crunch the numbers and find out.
Comments
"A boat is something you pick up and put on a ship"
(unless it's a submarine. Then it's always a boat)
But... As I understand it, virus's continually mutate, in all directions. The more deadly viruses tend to kill there host quickly therefor limiting there ability to pass on to the next generation, where as, the milder mutations, will let the host live a bit longer, possibly with milder systems to start with, giving more time to spread to new people.
and again I am ready to be corrected, but i think this pattern is fairly consistent, its just a case of how quickly does it get less deadly and by how much does it get less deadly.
Before you get too excited, you might also note that the more severe cases seem to be in the elderly. And remember that you too might be susceptible.
There is also the possibility that fewer women get infected since they tend to be (slightly) more fastidious in remembering to wash their hands.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/women-hand-washing-more-than-men-why-coronavirus.html
Amazingly Prescott was one of them - until he became deputy. I always had time for Denis Healey.
Blair was a different kettle of fish. He was a tad too smarmy for my liking - but he was skilled at winning elections and was prepared to challenge Labour on some core issues in order to deliver that electability.
I was gobsmacked when Labour went for Ed over David. I still think it was the wrong choice and we won't be where we are now if it had gone differently.
So I can find positives within the Labour movement.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-6866.html
There's also an interesting new poll from Virginia, showing Sanders and Bloomberg tied, with Biden just behind.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/va/virginia_democratic_primary-6920.html
So I guess the hope is that a milder version arises from a mutation, spreads more quickly (because people carry on with their lives while carrying) yet gives immunity to the original deadlier version. Some expert on the radio was saying something along these lines, as best I recall it.
But it's really, really hard to get a representative sample.
Freeze your jizz quick.
I'm also increasingly cautious of people who say "Biden". To me that is now just a way of saying "I'm not paying much attention to the race, and went be voting in the primary/caucus"
The argument often used by anti-EU types is that flooding as we are currently experiencing is the fault of the EU who stop us from dredging rivers and streams. This is not really true, however it sounds better than saying we don't dredge much because the Environment Agency, Sepa, NRW and NIEA are woefully underfunded.
The same spotty geek unfortunately also seems to have wrecked the pages displaying the model's forecasts, forcing you to click on each name in turn to see the data for each candidate, one at a time.
Anyone who has ever opened a door for a cat that is clearly asking to go out, only for the cat to stay firmly put, knows how this one works. Cats don’t want to go out in the rain and get soaked-through so much as they want the option to go out, freely and sovereignly, at any point without the indignity of squeezing through a catflap. From a cat’s perspective too, doors are an insufferable brake on their global ambitions; but once the door is open, it is the cat’s business whether it just chooses to stay in the warm most of the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/18/boris-johnson-eu-deal-downing-street-negotiator-britain
If you did have the real deal: please describe in detail.
Not sure any other pb regular could do so.
And it isn't just readers of the Daily Mail who are incensed, clearly the problem extends to Ireland too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
Once again, the EU issues a clear line, leaves the implementation to national Governments and agencies, ducks all responsibility when it comes to specifics -'Prevent dredging - moi?' and allows its fanboys as seen on the threads here to mock those crazy 'anti-EU types' who are actually making perfectly sensible cause and effect arguments. And then has the nerve to say that the EU has been unfairly maligned over the years!
If Boris has a shred of sense, he will DREDGE as soon as can be arranged, and he will tell people quite rightly that it is adherence to EU regulations that has restricted this activity up to now. It demonstrates just about everything he stands for.
been hired by Dominic Cummings for blue sky thinking.
If you get it real bad with serious side effects then in some male patients, maybe, it could cause infertility. But not most.
I see similar caveats as potential side effects of just about every serious medical drug going.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/e