Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
Message on COVID-19 seems to be to avoid church congregations......
Interesting piece. On the BBC Ten last night a British couple currently in Milan were commenting that everything is shut 'except the churches.' This has evidently been an issue in South Korea and in Iran with religious gatherings.
Moral of the story? Avoid religion.
p.s. The Singapore Times needs training on how to write a Newspaper headline
Mass was cancelled across a lot of Italy on Sunday. Communion would be particularly unwise. Today is Ash Wednesday, of course.
No alcohol for me this Lent.
Communion would be fine as long as everyone dipped.
So the germs on their hands end up in the wine instead?
Well if you really want to go ott you could install a hand sanitiser but I think that is OTT.
The logical solution is for the celebrant to use hand sanitizer and intinct the wafers themselves.
But that would be sensible and will therefore not happen.
I don't think the RC laity get wine at all do they?
It depends. In Hampstead, no. Here in Cumbria we do.
Sounds like Sanders lost a little momentum and Biden gained some and the former VP should now win the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
Beyond that however Sanders remains clear favourite and all Buttigieg's attacks on Sanders for being unelectable will do is ensure the South Bend Mayor is struck off the Vermont Senator's VP list
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
Wow.
So you refer to Zambia as Northern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as Southern Rhodesia?
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
My impression viewing the debate was that Warren, Steyer, Klobuchar and Mayor Pete are no longer relevant. It's between Bernie, Bloomberg and Biden.
Three creepy white rich guys from the northeast who are all 76 or older and two of whom are not even Democrats.
What could possibly be a drawback with such a field?
The only candidates for President are four old white guys in various shades of narcissistic trauma and general decrepitude, offering their own selection of bat-shit craziness. For the next four years.
Only one of whom is a Democrat.
Way to go, primary system.....
Nailed it
Barring a Disease X catastrophe, I can't see Trump losing. The only one who could lay a finger on him is probably Mike Bloomberg, but the Democrats decided to tear into him instead.
What a mess.
The most recent polls aren't showing this at all, and the Republicans have shifted their attitude on Sanders.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
Isn’t that temporary though?
I don't know. I would be surprised if they didn't make it permanent. China doesn't want a repeat.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
The main fuss is due to: it's a new strain of virus, which is killing people, so far there is no vaccine and media outlets love a story like this.
Yes, that is a good article. I was reading a couple of weeks ago, that there is a good chance this new variant of corona virus, which at the time had no name, will become a standard illness in future winters like colds and influenza.
Lock down and qarrantine does seem harsh for those locked down, especially those on the cruise ship, where the chances of the virus spreading amongst the passengers was likely. But we have to counter this with the principle that containment is a good strategy, when very little is known about the disease in the outbreak but there is the potential to have a high death rate.
Things have moved on a lot in the last two weeks. We now know that the disease can be transmitted by people with no symptoms, and those who test negative at first. We now know that the diseas is not the rampant killer that H5N1 was, but that the death rate is high enough to take the spread of the virus seriously. We certainly should not be ignoring it.
It now seems that a large proportion of the population will be *exposed* to the COVID 19 virus, although nobody can tell if the prevalence will be 5% or 50%. a good easy to understand information campaign consistent accross countries could make a huge difference to the number of deaths this spring, probably more so than cancelling sports events, concerts etc. As pointed out by others here, delaying the transmission rate of the virus can have a huge effect on the total number of cases, especially as the transmission and symptoms are exascerbated by winter conditions.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You are wrong, even in the US if you earn a $100 000 a year 56% of US voters consider you are rich
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
Isn’t that temporary though?
I don't know. I would be surprised if they didn't make it permanent. China doesn't want a repeat.
Like President Mitterrand eating ortolans as his last meal so a formal ban will make no real change. A nation which believes in snorting dried tiger cock on the basis it will make them particularly hard will have no difficulty in continuing to eat barbecued lemur. Particularly as Communist Party officials won’t stop.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
SARS and MERS were easier to contain had much higher death rates than the best estimate for Covid-19.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You are wrong, even in the US if you earn a $100 000 a year 56% of US voters consider you are rich
It’s OK to be old as well. Indeed, most of us aspire to be old at some point in the future. Or rich. Most people want to be rich. Admittedly, some people get agitated when they’re not and start shooting rich people (hello, Lenin).
Father Lenin, who was correct in all things, came from quite a wealthy family. He was certainly rich by the standards of the Russian Empire at the time.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
Isn’t that temporary though?
I don't know. I would be surprised if they didn't make it permanent. China doesn't want a repeat.
Like President Mitterrand eating ortolans as his last meal so a formal ban will make no real change. A nation which believes in snorting dried tiger cock on the basis it will make them particularly hard will have no difficulty in continuing to eat barbecued lemur. Particularly as Communist Party officials won’t stop.
If the Chinese population falls below 1 billion that starts to hit their economy given their ageing population and former 1 child policy
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message on COVID-19 seems to be to avoid church congregations......
Interesting piece. On the BBC Ten last night a British couple currently in Milan were commenting that everything is shut 'except the churches.' This has evidently been an issue in South Korea and in Iran with religious gatherings.
Moral of the story? Avoid religion.
p.s. The Singapore Times needs training on how to write a Newspaper headline
Mass was cancelled across a lot of Italy on Sunday. Communion would be particularly unwise. Today is Ash Wednesday, of course.
No alcohol for me this Lent.
Communion would be fine as long as everyone dipped.
So the germs on their hands end up in the wine instead?
Well if you really want to go ott you could install a hand sanitiser but I think that is OTT.
The logical solution is for the celebrant to use hand sanitizer and intinct the wafers themselves.
But that would be sensible and will therefore not happen.
I don't think the RC laity get wine at all do they?
It depends. In Hampstead, no. Here in Cumbria we do.
Hmm... are you saying that transubstansiation isn’t a thing any more?
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
Stalingrad, Kaliningrad, Gdańsk, Szczecin. In many cases done simultaneously with expelling much of the existing population. India is different in that there seems to be a time lag between renaming and killing or expelling every Muslim.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You are wrong, even in the US if you earn a $100 000 a year 56% of US voters consider you are rich
The whole survey is completely misconceived. Income is irrelevant; only accumulated assets matter. And even then your main property doesn't help unless you're somehow earning passive income on it.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Reports showing the Severn topping the flood defences in Bewdley are very worryimg and distressing for those involved. In the 1990's our local area suffered flooding from the sea and sky and it was only mitigated when millions were spent on breakwaters and groynes deflecting the tidal surges. My business was flooded three times in 24 hours and hundreds of homes were seriously damaged
I was involved in attending many of these homes and monitoring the repairs and in many cases it took more than six months, and of course the homes either attracted very high insurance premiums or no insurance at all
And this brings me round to Boris. His absence from the media is just negligent. He may consider himself to be a CEO and trusts his delegation, but this is a personal crisis for many home and business owners and his silence is unacceptable
He does not need to be visiting the areas but he does need to make clear that compensation will be paid to those sustaining serious losses and real assistance to business owners. The misery of being flooded is an emotional event and offering people £500 is just crass
Boris has the field to himself for now, but it does not excuse his perceived neglect and he is going to face a new labour leader and shadow cabinet shortly, and if he wants to retain his support he needs to become pro-actice and not keep disappearing behind the doors of no 10
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
A long-term effect of the virus could be that some manufacturing firms diversify away some of their critical just-in-time supply chains away from China.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
China banned the wildlife trade on monday, so at least one good outcome. After this, I expect it to be enforced too.
Isn’t that temporary though?
I don't know. I would be surprised if they didn't make it permanent. China doesn't want a repeat.
Like President Mitterrand eating ortolans as his last meal so a formal ban will make no real change. A nation which believes in snorting dried tiger cock on the basis it will make them particularly hard will have no difficulty in continuing to eat barbecued lemur. Particularly as Communist Party officials won’t stop.
If the Chinese population falls below 1 billion that starts to hit their economy given their ageing population and former 1 child policy
Since that represents a fall of just under 400 million people, yes that probably would "begin to hit their economy" !
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
Look for any randomised clinical trials. Bet you can’t find them
They are not hard to find, but I am far from qualified to interpret them, hence my question. (They are obviously not Covid19 specific but they include human coronavirus).
It’s OK to be old as well. Indeed, most of us aspire to be old at some point in the future. Or rich. Most people want to be rich. Admittedly, some people get agitated when they’re not and start shooting rich people (hello, Lenin).
Father Lenin, who was correct in all things, came from quite a wealthy family. He was certainly rich by the standards of the Russian Empire at the time.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
Its simply insulting to suggest you need an annual income of £1m a year to not work.
It’s OK to be old as well. Indeed, most of us aspire to be old at some point in the future. Or rich. Most people want to be rich. Admittedly, some people get agitated when they’re not and start shooting rich people (hello, Lenin).
Father Lenin, who was correct in all things, came from quite a wealthy family. He was certainly rich by the standards of the Russian Empire at the time.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message me again when the Indians who actually live there stop referring to it as Bombay.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
Its simply insulting to suggest you need an annual income of £1m a year to not work.
Retirement must look a long way away if that's the end goal.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
Look for any randomised clinical trials. Bet you can’t find them
They are not hard to find, but I am far from qualified to interpret them, hence my question. (They are obviously not Covid19 specific but they include human coronavirus).
Meh N=46, healthy volunteers Rhinovirus 16 present in 35/46 Viral load (AUC) reduces but only p=0.023 so some indicative value but not compelling Benefit was to reduce duration from 6.5 to 3.0 days with p=0.014
@Foxy will have a view but I say Meh. You’ll do as well with seawater
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
So, I was reading this in The Atlantic yesterday. I may not have understood it properly, but as far as I can tell what it is saying is that Covid-19 is set to become what is essentially a new strain of winter illnesss, alongside colds and flu. If that is the case, though, why has it engendered so much panic. What am I missing?
Because current estimates suggest it could be 20 times more deadly than flu. Perhaps more, perhaps less. But no-one on earth really knows, that is part of the problem and part of the fear.
But if we take our current best estimate it will virtually certainly overwhelm health care systems across the globe. The response will be a crisis in civil society, a break down in law and order, the destruction of whole swathes of the economy and a fundamental shift in the way that life currently exists.
Apart from that, nothing. There are lots of other things which I don't want to think about at the moment.
You want all that in perpetuity? Let's hope not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. An economic hit is pretty nailed on, but sensible containment policies and contact tracing hopefully keep things at manageable levels. SARS and MERS both faded away. Covid 19 is more infectious, so will be harder, but I am an optimist. The next six months could be pretty nasty though.
Have you heard of Coldzyme? It forms a protective barrier in the throat that deactivates common viruses including human coronavirus according to their company website.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
The local government did (I think the U.K. call it Derry/Londonderry)
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
Its simply insulting to suggest you need an annual income of £1m a year to not work.
Retirement must look a long way away if that's the end goal.
A fair proportion of the nation earn £1m across their lifetime!
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
It’s not my own definition. It’s commonly accepted.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
What does it take to be super-rich on your scale?
I’ve already explained what rich is up thread. Enough that you don’t need to work.
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
Obviously you can have your own definition of rich if you like. But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
Its simply insulting to suggest you need an annual income of £1m a year to not work.
Facts don’t care about your opinions.
This debate reeks of emotion and jealously, so it’s not objective.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
The local government did (I think the U.K. call it Derry/Londonderry)
Which is dominated by one part of the community in an area where there’s historically been sectarian violence over it.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
Wasn’t it Hindu Nationalists making a point?
Yes, it might well have been.
We don’t have to respect sectarian renamings.
It’s discourteous and anachronistic.
That depends on the circumstances.
We still call (including the BBC) Myanmar Burma and many Indians find Mumbai offensive.
It’s OK to be old as well. Indeed, most of us aspire to be old at some point in the future. Or rich. Most people want to be rich. Admittedly, some people get agitated when they’re not and start shooting rich people (hello, Lenin).
Father Lenin, who was correct in all things, came from quite a wealthy family. He was certainly rich by the standards of the Russian Empire at the time.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
The only commonly accepted definition is 50-200% more than the person using the word rich has.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
That's just how it's spelled and correctly transliterated in Bengali as is the case with Mumbai in Marathi.
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Message me again when the Indians who actually live there stop referring to it as Bombay.
The wealthy and well-educated Indians that are the extreme minority do use Bombay in my experience. I have no idea what the majority of Indians who live there call it.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
The local government did (I think the U.K. call it Derry/Londonderry)
Which is dominated by one part of the community in an area where there’s historically been sectarian violence over it.
In my opinion, defining "rich" is the obverse of defining "poor" in this sense: poor is best thought of in terms of absolute income, whereas rich is best thought of in terms of relative wealth.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
Wasn’t it Hindu Nationalists making a point?
Yes, it might well have been.
We don’t have to respect sectarian renamings.
It’s discourteous and anachronistic.
That depends on the circumstances.
We still call (including the BBC) Myanmar Burma and many Indians find Mumbai offensive.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
The local government did (I think the U.K. call it Derry/Londonderry)
Which is dominated by one part of the community in an area where there’s historically been sectarian violence over it.
So I’d stay well clear.
Hence Derry/Londonderry
To call it one is to choose sides.
The BBC uses Derry FWIW
I’ve heard the BBC use both terms, and it’s Londonderry on the weather.
Interesting, that must be one of only three or four Democrat state polls Sanders is behind in at the moment. He's ahead in about 47.
The second poll linked to below is also very interesting - if enough voters start to believe Sanders is actually better placed than the others to beat Trump, not only will it accelerate his path to the nomination, but it will potentially bring him more previous non-voters and independents.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite your well established definition of being rich?
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
If you earn well over average income, have far more property and assets than average and are perceived by the average person to be rich you are rich, however much you may squeal you are not.
You do not need to be on the Sunday Times Rich list to be rich, super rich maybe but not just rich
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Why not cite your well established definition of being rich?
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
It’s been posted on here before. I can’t find it quickly enough on google.
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
I didn't trouble myself to take a position on the substance. I just noticed, once again, that your debating style reduces to "I am right, go away".
Nope, that isn’t my style.
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
Lol, classic.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
I could say the same about you.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Great. Could you now clear up how long a piece of string is, please? Always wondered about that.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
Begs the question why they renamed all the places and ruined it then.
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
Wasn’t it Hindu Nationalists making a point?
Yes, it might well have been.
We don’t have to respect sectarian renamings.
It’s discourteous and anachronistic.
That depends on the circumstances.
We still call (including the BBC) Myanmar Burma and many Indians find Mumbai offensive.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your friend. We’ve even posted it on here and discussed before, last time several weeks ago.
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
Great. Could you now clear up how long a piece of string is, please? Always wondered about that.
Why is no-one talking about the anti-Muslim pogroms in India right now? Police standing by while innocent victims are beaten. This could easily spiral into genocide.
I’m afraid the honest answer is probably because the British media has little or no interest in India. I only found out about it a few minutes ago, after three days. It certainly sounds extremely grim.
The anti Muslim Modi mobs have going on for months now.
I don’t know why but anyway I meet from Bombay calls it Bombay, not Mumbai.
I’m up for that because I much prefer calling it Bombay as an English speaker anyway, we don’t call Vienna “Wien”, for example.
I’m not sure if it means anything.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Chicken Chennai for dinner.
The Indians all use use old names, even Mumbai airport is still BOM on your ticket.
That doesn't mean much, Ho Chin Min City is still SGN too.
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
I do. Rhodesia never dies.
That’s a bit weird, even in jest
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
I don’t think the Government (the UK) have renamed Londonderry “Derry”.
The local government did (I think the U.K. call it Derry/Londonderry)
I think that within Northern Ireland it is known as Derry and is referred to as such by most people. Even Unionists would use it in casual conversation, though never officially. Outwith, it is Londonderry and the use of Derry would tend to denote nationalist/republican sympathies.
Nor do I want to be rich. That attracts attention and hangers-on. I want comfort and peace.
So I’d say a low six-figure salary for a numbers of years
And you think that wouldn’t make you rich?!!
No.
You'd be rich to me. I guess I'd be rich to the bloke huddled in the shop doorway this morning, waiting to get moved on once the town centre opens.
We can split hairs but you and I both know that’s not rich.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
They are all rich to the average earner, just the former are super rich
No. Wrong again.
No, absolutely right and it is very arrogant to average earners and the poor and unemployed to suggest if you are on a 6 figure salary you are not rich
No, absolutely wrong.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
You must have this post on cut and paste.
No, it’s a commonly accepted definition and threshold of rich. Look it up. Google is your a victory over a minor debating point.
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
No, I’m not debating it. I’m clarifying the argument.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
If you earn well over average income, have far more property and assets than average and are perceived by the average person to be rich you are rich, however much you may squeal you are not.
You do not need to be on the Sunday Times Rich list to be rich, super rich maybe but not just rich
FWIW I have a modest lifestyle and am certainly relatively poor compared to most of my friends and family. But I fully accept that’s not how the average person would perceive me
Comments
Nobody calls Harare "Salisbury" any more.
Unless they clamp down on trading live bats in weird animal markets this could happen again.
Only the totals.
Beyond that however Sanders remains clear favourite and all Buttigieg's attacks on Sanders for being unelectable will do is ensure the South Bend Mayor is struck off the Vermont Senator's VP list
So you refer to Zambia as Northern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as Southern Rhodesia?
Kolkata being perhaps the weirdest one.
Bloomberg and Trump are rich. Branson is rich.
A medical consultant is just well off.
https://www.enzymatica.se/en/research-and-development/coldzyme-studies/
Likely to be any use?
Assets of at least £5m+ and an annual income of £1m+. Ten times that for super rich.
If you’re earning £120k but started with nothing and are paying a big mortgage and cost for your kids education you are well off, but not rich.
I’m not interested in discussing this further. I know I’m right.
Yes, that is a good article. I was reading a couple of weeks ago, that there is a good chance this new variant of corona virus, which at the time had no name, will become a standard illness in future winters like colds and influenza.
Lock down and qarrantine does seem harsh for those locked down, especially those on the cruise ship, where the chances of the virus spreading amongst the passengers was likely. But we have to counter this with the principle that containment is a good strategy, when very little is known about the disease in the outbreak but there is the potential to have a high death rate.
Things have moved on a lot in the last two weeks. We now know that the disease can be transmitted by people with no symptoms, and those who test negative at first. We now know that the diseas is not the rampant killer that H5N1 was, but that the death rate is high enough to take the spread of the virus seriously. We certainly should not be ignoring it.
It now seems that a large proportion of the population will be *exposed* to the COVID 19 virus, although nobody can tell if the prevalence will be 5% or 50%. a good easy to understand information campaign consistent accross countries could make a huge difference to the number of deaths this spring, probably more so than cancelling sports events, concerts etc. As pointed out by others here, delaying the transmission rate of the virus can have a huge effect on the total number of cases, especially as the transmission and symptoms are exascerbated by winter conditions.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/economy/articles-reports/2019/01/14/how-much-money-do-you-need-earn-year-be-rich
In the UK once you reach only £60 500 a year then 68% of voters think you are rich
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/02/how-much-money-do-you-need-earn-year-be-rich
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/02/how-much-money-do-you-need-earn-year-be-rich
“As a former Republican governor you should know!“
It’s a matter of courtesy. If the government of somewhere changes its name then it’s polite to follow.
Hence Beijing, Mumbai, Derry etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYmlzB7AIWM
The video below may help to show why he's polling ahead of Trump in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxb5S87O23s
Most of the city name changes are to correct the spelling invented by half witted Englishmen or to reflect the dominant language of the state in which they are located.
The Indians have shrugged the yoke of imperialism that enslaved and impoverished them for so long. You're going to have to get over it.
Reports showing the Severn topping the flood defences in Bewdley are very worryimg and distressing for those involved. In the 1990's our local area suffered flooding from the sea and sky and it was only mitigated when millions were spent on breakwaters and groynes deflecting the tidal surges. My business was flooded three times in 24 hours and hundreds of homes were seriously damaged
I was involved in attending many of these homes and monitoring the repairs and in many cases it took more than six months, and of course the homes either attracted very high insurance premiums or no insurance at all
And this brings me round to Boris. His absence from the media is just negligent. He may consider himself to be a CEO and trusts his delegation, but this is a personal crisis for many home and business owners and his silence is unacceptable
He does not need to be visiting the areas but he does need to make clear that compensation will be paid to those sustaining serious losses and real assistance to business owners. The misery of being flooded is an emotional event and offering people £500 is just crass
Boris has the field to himself for now, but it does not excuse his perceived neglect and he is going to face a new labour leader and shadow cabinet shortly, and if he wants to retain his support he needs to become pro-actice and not keep disappearing behind the doors of no 10
Look for any randomised clinical trials. Bet you can’t find them
Or did I blink and miss something?
But it's a fact that the vast majority of people who don't need to work have less than £5m in assets and an income much smaller than £1m a year.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/OJRD_2017101315222556.pdf
Who was it Monday lunchtime who suggested it might be too late to sell?
We don’t have to respect sectarian renamings.
N=46, healthy volunteers
Rhinovirus 16 present in 35/46
Viral load (AUC) reduces but only p=0.023 so some indicative value but not compelling
Benefit was to reduce duration from 6.5 to 3.0 days with p=0.014
@Foxy will have a view but I say Meh. You’ll do as well with seawater
£500 up in five minutes
It’s sufficient wealth such that you can ignore the jobs market and vagaries of the economic cycle. You need sufficient assets that a 3-4% yield can provide you with a very good income so you can live a rich lifestyle.
I’m not interested in debating *perceptions* of being rich, just because of the neediness of some on here to score a victory over a minor debating point.
This debate reeks of emotion and jealously, so it’s not objective.
So I’d stay well clear.
We still call (including the BBC) Myanmar Burma and many Indians find Mumbai offensive.
"No"
"No. Wrong again"
"No, absolutely wrong"
"No..."
then it seems that you are interested in 'debating' it.
HYFUD has a pathological need to be right and it’s pointless arguing with him once he’s set out his stall because, rather than concede, he’ll simply move the goalposts when he senses he’s on weak ground.
It’s a waste of my time.
He’s arguing over perceptions of being rich. I’m arguing what actually defines being rich.
To call it one is to choose sides.
The BBC uses Derry FWIW
I just have no interest in pointless debates with needy pedants.
You also being one of them at times.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12990563
On Mumbai that is its name.
I agree on the stroke classification.
The second poll linked to below is also very interesting - if enough voters start to believe Sanders is actually better placed than the others to beat Trump, not only will it accelerate his path to the nomination, but it will potentially bring him more previous non-voters and independents.
Given it is inherently subjective I am sceptical there is a consensus on this but let's see what you are referring to.
Sometimes I wonder what you get out of being here. It certainly isn't a sense of vindication.
You do not need to be on the Sunday Times Rich list to be rich, super rich maybe but not just rich
It might have been Richard Nabavi who did so.
A common mistake is to slice it by the top 1% of earners (easy to measure) rather than by who is innately rich.
Come back to me when you’ve been a regular for fifteen years, met most of the editorial team, had several articles published and made a lot of money.
(When you can get away from wrapping yourself up in your traitor’s apron that is.)
Incidentally ftse 100 sub 6900.
Don’t waste my time.