A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
It’s a balancing act, though, as there comes a point when powerful religion is able to inhibit free thinking and hence slow innovation and invention. Hence catholic Europe overtook the medieval Islamic world but was itself eclipsed by Protestant europe. Or compare North and South America.
Yes I would agree. I'm thinking of much earlier, more like the time when farming and agriculture was taking hold.
It was certainly key in bringing about the remarkable transformation from relatively equal and participatory hunter gatherer societies to empires with a few powerful wealthy rulers (appointed by god) and many slaves and serfs.
I can't see how religion can be blamed for that tbh.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
Surely by being in the fraction that display symptoms that increases the likelihood?
Possibly. Not sure if the data sourced by worldometer distinguishes between symptomatic and non-symptomatic
I know that if I get this, as a 50-something male, with no underlying conditions, I immediately have about a 1 in 50 chance of dying. If I go into a British ICU (after the standard but unlucky and deteriorating 7-8 day progression) I then have a 1 in 2 chance of dying.
Isn't the 1 in 50 a yearly risk? Whereas the ICU Covid sufferer is lets be generous a 1 in 10 chance of dying within 2 weeks?
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
But the male-female thing appears to derive mostly from lifestyle: smoking, drinking, poor hygiene, and recklessness. Johnson certainly ticks the last, and probably the second last, but not the first.
3 out of 4 icu admissions in Sweden are of men, but slightly more women than men smoke (10% vs 8 %)
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
Surely by being in the fraction that display symptoms that increases the likelihood?
Possibly. Not sure if the data sourced by worldometer distinguishes between symptomatic and non-symptomatic
I know that if I get this, as a 50-something male, with no underlying conditions, I immediately have about a 1 in 50 chance of dying. If I go into a British ICU (after the standard but unlucky and deteriorating 7-8 day progression) I then have a 1 in 2 chance of dying.
Isn't the 1 in 50 a yearly risk? Whereas the ICU Covid sufferer is lets be generous a 1 in 10 chance of dying within 2 weeks?
According to R4 More or Less, getting the virus this year pretty much doubles the chance you already had of dying during 2020, whatever age you are.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
Religion was invented by the ancient elite to scare the plebs out of nicking their stuff.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
Then I caught myself thinking, "Maybe I should watch The Phantom Menace"
Seriously worried now
You know it has got really bad when you feel like watching the Hans Solo movie. And definitely call 999 if you feel an urge to listen to Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
But the male-female thing appears to derive mostly from lifestyle: smoking, drinking, poor hygiene, and recklessness. Johnson certainly ticks the last, and probably the second last, but not the first.
3 out of 4 icu admissions in Sweden are of men, but slightly more women than men smoke (10% vs 8 %)
Yes, but the key “underlying medical conditions” we keep hearing about have heart problems at the top of the list, which is very male dominated. Even diabetes now has a slight male bias. Plus alcohol related illnesses.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
Just click the small x to close that box, and the article is beneath
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
It’s a balancing act, though, as there comes a point when powerful religion is able to inhibit free thinking and hence slow innovation and invention. Hence catholic Europe overtook the medieval Islamic world but was itself eclipsed by Protestant europe. Or compare North and South America.
Yes I would agree. I'm thinking of much earlier, more like the time when farming and agriculture was taking hold.
It was certainly key in bringing about the remarkable transformation from relatively equal and participatory hunter gatherer societies to empires with a few powerful wealthy rulers (appointed by god) and many slaves and serfs.
I can't see how religion can be blamed for that tbh.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
But the male-female thing appears to derive mostly from lifestyle: smoking, drinking, poor hygiene, and recklessness. Johnson certainly ticks the last, and probably the second last, but not the first.
3 out of 4 icu admissions in Sweden are of men, but slightly more women than men smoke (10% vs 8 %)
Yes, but the key “underlying medical conditions” we keep hearing about have heart problems at the top of the list, which is very male dominated. Even diabetes now has a slight male bias. Plus alcohol related illnesses.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
You mean the one with the little X in the top right-hand corner?
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity that allows excruciating pain to innocent children to give us free will FFS.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
It’s a balancing act, though, as there comes a point when powerful religion is able to inhibit free thinking and hence slow innovation and invention. Hence catholic Europe overtook the medieval Islamic world but was itself eclipsed by Protestant europe. Or compare North and South America.
Yes I would agree. I'm thinking of much earlier, more like the time when farming and agriculture was taking hold.
It was certainly key in bringing about the remarkable transformation from relatively equal and participatory hunter gatherer societies to empires with a few powerful wealthy rulers (appointed by god) and many slaves and serfs.
I can't see how religion can be blamed for that tbh.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity that allows excruciating pain to innocent children to give us free will FFS.
I do think it is possible that there are alien intelligences in the universe that, to our puny minds, are omniscient and omnipotent but I do not believe they are benevolent.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
You mean the one with the little X in the top right-hand corner?
As he really doesn’t love the Guardian, that’s not an option...
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity that allows excruciating pain to innocent children to give us free will FFS.
I do think it is possible that there are alien intelligences in the universe that, to our puny minds, are omniscient and omnipotent but I do not believe they are benevolent.
Then I caught myself thinking, "Maybe I should watch The Phantom Menace"
Seriously worried now
You know it has got really bad when you feel like watching the Hans Solo movie. And definitely call 999 if you feel an urge to listen to Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
You mean the one with the little X in the top right-hand corner?
As he really doesn’t love the Guardian, that’s not an option...
I appreciate it must be a difficult puzzle for him to solve
Brave Boris to slay the Thatcher 'No such thing as society' shibboleth.
I'm beginning to think this virus is going to be the making of Johnson as a great Prime Minister. The one thing he absolutely must do is sack Cummings. Boris can cut himself free of the petty-minded Cummings and be his own man now and rise to be one of the greats.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
It’s a balancing act, though, as there comes a point when powerful religion is able to inhibit free thinking and hence slow innovation and invention. Hence catholic Europe overtook the medieval Islamic world but was itself eclipsed by Protestant europe. Or compare North and South America.
Yes I would agree. I'm thinking of much earlier, more like the time when farming and agriculture was taking hold.
It was certainly key in bringing about the remarkable transformation from relatively equal and participatory hunter gatherer societies to empires with a few powerful wealthy rulers (appointed by god) and many slaves and serfs.
I can't see how religion can be blamed for that tbh.
Religion and inequality have gone hand in hand throughout history. The correlation survives through to the modern day.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
It’s a balancing act, though, as there comes a point when powerful religion is able to inhibit free thinking and hence slow innovation and invention. Hence catholic Europe overtook the medieval Islamic world but was itself eclipsed by Protestant europe. Or compare North and South America.
Yes I would agree. I'm thinking of much earlier, more like the time when farming and agriculture was taking hold.
It was certainly key in bringing about the remarkable transformation from relatively equal and participatory hunter gatherer societies to empires with a few powerful wealthy rulers (appointed by god) and many slaves and serfs.
I can't see how religion can be blamed for that tbh.
Religion and inequality have gone hand in hand throughout history. The correlation survives through to the modern day.
Yes indeed, but which is the cause and which the effect?
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent entity that allows excruciating pain to innocent children to give us free will FFS.
I do think it is possible that there are alien intelligences in the universe that, to our puny minds, are omniscient and omnipotent but I do not believe they are benevolent.
But it’s equally possible they are, perhaps ?
No. If they were all-knowing and all-powerful and benevolent they wouldn't allow the pain that innocents suffer. It is the problem of evil. The "get out" for religionists is that is it is a consequence of free will. Sort it out for God's sake if you are omnipotent!
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
It wont let me read it without paying. They can fuck off.
Really?? Where are you?
UKIP HQ
Lol but I woukdnt give ukip a cent either.
Struggling to understand why you cannot see Guardian content for free - I can.
I am on android. I get a yellow screen with option of donate or subscribe.
You mean the one with the little X in the top right-hand corner?
As he really doesn’t love the Guardian, that’s not an option...
I appreciate it must be a difficult puzzle for him to solve
Go suck a.lemon. there is no x or i would have used it
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
As a Catholic Atheist I remember that God. I think it is question 17 in the Catholic Catechism. What is God? "God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections."
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
“Day nine of two weeks isolation, Lindsey is five days behind that (isolated in a different part of the house). I’m feeling ok but the situation in Nola is awful. Way worse than New York but not being covered in the media. We have a dem governor so trump will make him kiss his boots before sending ventilators...”
The most dangerous thing about Donald Trump is not his lying, or his preening. It's his division of the United States into those who are his people, and whose who are not.
I don't think there's been a President in the last 100 years who has thought like he has.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
As a Catholic Atheist I remember that God. I think it is question 17 in the Catholic Catechism. What is God? "God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections."
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
Is there a more confirmed atheist than a Catholic one ?
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
As a Catholic Atheist I remember that God. I think it is question 17 in the Catholic Catechism. What is God? "God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections."
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
As a Catholic Atheist I remember that God. I think it is question 17 in the Catholic Catechism. What is God? "God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections."
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
Is there a more confirmed atheist than a Catholic one ?
A theory of mine* is that religion became successful in the first place is because of social darwinism. Populations are more likely to be sucessful are ones with a reasonable level of compliance such as not stealing or killing and general obeying laws. A population with religion obtians this level of compliance quicker.
*but I'm sure I'm not the only one to have come up with it
There is that, but also the altruism and collective actions of religion foster civilisation.
I have never had a problem with Darwinism. I think God is clever enough to create systems that improve themselves.
Yes sorry I wanted to keep the post short, I agree the altruism and community in a religion is also a social Darwinian driver.
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
I know. Atheists are usually very certain of which god they dont believe in.
It is the one that we are indoctrinated into that we then escape from that we disbelieve. I say this as a Catholic Atheist.
As a Catholic Atheist I remember that God. I think it is question 17 in the Catholic Catechism. What is God? "God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections."
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
Is there a more confirmed atheist than a Catholic one ?
Probably not I'm not bitter. I actually enjoyed school and I think the Catholism has informed my own personal morality which is good. I'm comfortable with that. But I certainly don't believe in a personal God that you pray to and have a personal relationship with. I think it is rather child-like. By the age of 7, 65% of children will have had an imaginary friend.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
While your numbers might be true for a random 55 year old, they are probably not true for the Prime Minister.
A random 55 year old would probably not have got tested so early, and would probably not be so closely monitored. If it comes to getting a ventilator, I think we know that Boris isn't going to wait in a crowded hospital corridor, or be put in an overflow hospital.
I would reckon his chance of death from this is probably comfortably under 1%.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
Data? The statistics you have dreamed up over the last few weeks are very much on the outlier side of expectations.
And I do take the situation seriously.
Here you go. The death rate for corona sufferers over 50 is 1.3%. Given that Boris has two other significant and relevant conditions: being male (men are 50% more likely to die than women) and being overweight (we know it is material, we just don’t know how much yet), that puts him in my 2-4% category of possible death.
The 2.3% death rate is based on diagnosed cases. Most people with CV-19, perhaps like your goodself, have not been diagnosed. You know, as well as I do, that except in Germany, then unless you are extremely symptomatic then you will not get tested, and you will not get added to the statistics.
That's not true for the PM.
I suspect that, along with all the members of the cabinet, he has been tested while either asymptomatic, or while having only modest symptoms. It is likely therefore that his likelihood of expiring is maybe a third of the headline 2-3%, even before we talk about his quality of care.
Brave Boris to slay the Thatcher 'No such thing as society' shibboleth.
I'm beginning to think this virus is going to be the making of Johnson as a great Prime Minister. The one thing he absolutely must do is sack Cummings. Boris can cut himself free of the petty-minded Cummings and be his own man now and rise to be one of the greats.
“Day nine of two weeks isolation, Lindsey is five days behind that (isolated in a different part of the house). I’m feeling ok but the situation in Nola is awful. Way worse than New York but not being covered in the media. We have a dem governor so trump will make him kiss his boots before sending ventilators...”
The most dangerous thing about Donald Trump is not his lying, or his preening. It's his division of the United States into those who are his people, and whose who are not.
I don't think there's been a President in the last 100 years who has thought like he has.
Depressing.
I read that the likelihood is that Blue states will be battered far more than Red states, allowing Trump's fans to wonder what all the fuss was about.
Boris gets a bit of respect for me for soldering on and being notably chipper despite obviously being unwell.
That's leadership. Like him or not.
Yes but I did note @Foxy saying that when you got this it was very important to rest up and give your body every chance.
I hope (for his sake) it's all for show and for national morale, and 99% of the time he's resting.
People need to think their leaders are resilient and invulnerable.
Sobering to think that, in about six/seven days, we will know whether the prime minister is likely to die, or not. Ditto the Health Secretary and the CMO.
With all that means for the leadership of the UK.
Give it a rest!
Er, it’s true?
Statistically, Matt Hanckok is extremely likely to survive, and Boris Johnson is very likely. But there is an unignorable risk that the PM will not.
Or would you rather we ignore it?
This site deals with data, not wishful dreams.
While your numbers might be true for a random 55 year old, they are probably not true for the Prime Minister.
A random 55 year old would probably not have got tested so early, and would probably not be so closely monitored. If it comes to getting a ventilator, I think we know that Boris isn't going to wait in a crowded hospital corridor, or be put in an overflow hospital.
I would reckon his chance of death from this is probably comfortably under 1%.
Ironically he survives corona virus, and bounces back leaner, tidier, more moderate in ideology, with a new chief spad who is 100% human.
But then his heart gives out when Sunak shows him the bill.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
I read it - quite ironic.
Guardian geography seems to be up there with their Maths and their Journalism.
"All over the world" they quote seems to consist of a couple of churches in Moscow, a few in Brazil, one in Georgia and one in Romania. Even the piece acknowledges that they are a few examples and lists others that are closed.
Apparently in Guardian geography most of the continents do not exist.
Classic Guardian dishonest (or thick) journalism giving a misleading impression, when they know only the misleading headline reaches a lot of readers.
Typical Guardian mistepresentation Our church us closed We talk by phone. Our vicar does a service online ..
I will.never give the shitbag that is the Guardian a cent. No need to read the article. The Daily Mail type headline is typical of lazy journalism
You don't have to give The Guardian a cent, it's not behind a paywall.
Since you won't read the article you won't be able to point out its inaccuracies, but if you had read it you still wouldn't be able to find any either.
I read it - quite ironic.
Guardian geography seems to be up there with their Maths and their Journalism.
"All over the world" they quote seems to consist of a couple of churches in Moscow, a few in Brazil, one in Georgia and one in Romania. Even the piece acknowledges that they are a few examples and lists others that are closed.
Apparently in Guardian geography most of the continents do not exist.
Classic Guardian dishonest (or thick) journalism giving a misleading impression, when they know only the misleading headline reaches a lot of readers.
Comments
I also do not see Darwinism and Christianity as mutually exclusive. And I know plenty of Christians who believe in both. Sadly there are scientists who think that almost all Christians are anti-Darwinists, because those are the ones who make the most noise.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nastan-8-av-10-av-de-svarast-sjuka-i-sverige-ar-man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_in_Sweden
I'm beginning to think this virus is going to be the making of Johnson as a great Prime Minister. The one thing he absolutely must do is sack Cummings. Boris can cut himself free of the petty-minded Cummings and be his own man now and rise to be one of the greats.
This isn't parody. I'm impressed.
I remember it well more than 60 years later because the Irish Christian Brothers who taught me beat with a thick leather strap until I was word perfect.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/29/intensive-care-coronavirus-patients-now-limited-reasonably-certain/
I don't think there's been a President in the last 100 years who has thought like he has.
https://twitter.com/ShivaniMody/status/1243870307217289217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=174&v=J9svrUUeIJ8
The U.S. Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/business/coronavirus-us-ventilator-shortage.html
A random 55 year old would probably not have got tested so early, and would probably not be so closely monitored. If it comes to getting a ventilator, I think we know that Boris isn't going to wait in a crowded hospital corridor, or be put in an overflow hospital.
I would reckon his chance of death from this is probably comfortably under 1%.
The 2.3% death rate is based on diagnosed cases. Most people with CV-19, perhaps like your goodself, have not been diagnosed. You know, as well as I do, that except in Germany, then unless you are extremely symptomatic then you will not get tested, and you will not get added to the statistics.
That's not true for the PM.
I suspect that, along with all the members of the cabinet, he has been tested while either asymptomatic, or while having only modest symptoms. It is likely therefore that his likelihood of expiring is maybe a third of the headline 2-3%, even before we talk about his quality of care.
No shit!
https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1244251263686057985
https://youtu.be/ruBfCWZbDT4
I read that the likelihood is that Blue states will be battered far more than Red states, allowing Trump's fans to wonder what all the fuss was about.
https://twitter.com/JohnPrineMusic/status/1244374068226293761?s=20
But then his heart gives out when Sunak shows him the bill.
Guardian geography seems to be up there with their Maths and their Journalism.
"All over the world" they quote seems to consist of a couple of churches in Moscow, a few in Brazil, one in Georgia and one in Romania. Even the piece acknowledges that they are a few examples and lists others that are closed.
Apparently in Guardian geography most of the continents do not exist.
Classic Guardian dishonest (or thick) journalism giving a misleading impression, when they know only the misleading headline reaches a lot of readers.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1244314312602202114