The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
It's all about grievance. Even when they have the power to do what they demand, they complain it's all Westminster's fault
You sound a bit...aggrieved.
Not really, just pointing out the obvious.
If it's obvious why does it need pointed out?
To generate discussion on the topic? I don't know. I notice you haven't actually commented on the matter itself, instead questioning why others are talking about it.
You 'don't know'? I think I'll give this high wattage discussion a miss.
Playing the man and not the ball. It's an interesting attack line from the SNP, isn't it? Despite them having the power to do exactly what they are asking of Westminster.
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
You blame it on civil servants but the government decides these things.
They really don't..... The report prepared by civil servants which went up for Theresa May's decision on tidal lagoons was a fantastic hatchet job. One number was £30 billion wrong - in favour of nuclear against tidal. Another was £60 billion wrong - in favour of nuclear against tidal.
If you think they were objective, go speak to Charles Hendry - who prepared the report into tidal lagoons.
Are the numbers wrong? If so do you have a source to what the numbers actually are? If the numbers are a third of what are being quoted there should be some credible reports somewhere detailing that?
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
Why has the cost come down by 67%? Seems hard to believe.
And does your £50 include running and maintenance costs?
Do you agree that if it's £150 then there's no justification to build it?
It's not £150.
It's £50 - £55. I am talking the nuclear scale Cardiff lagoon. You are talking stand-alone Swansea Bay lagoon testbed, back in the day.
The Govt. were offered the building of Swansea and Cardiff together at a price of £60. Several years ago. That was blocked by, yes you guessed it - the civil servants.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
I would argue that the big problem the Dems have is their support is deep but not wide. For example, Biden won Minnesota comfortably but the Reps won 5 out of the 8 congressional districts (the districts are not gerrymandered).
It's a similar story in Pennsylvania where Biden won the state but the delegation is split 9-9. The 2 Philadelphia districts are D+41 and D+25.
The Dems problems are likely to get worse after reapportionment. For the first time, California is likely to lose an electoral vote. This is partly because some Republicans are getting fed up with state's increasingly left wing policies and are moving to Texas and Idaho. We could end up with a situation where the Dems need to be 5% ahead in the national vote to win.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
How he expects Johnson to fix a problem within the gift of Sturgeon is a bit of a mystery....why not gross it up? The Scottish government will get the money back anyway....
If you gross up the optics are terrible, consultants getting 925 quiddies while nurses and carers only get 625. Outrage!
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
I’d be pleasantly surprised if that’s the case but I doubt it. I looked at putting a couple of quid in Swansea when they were looking for investors a few years back but the numbers didn’t add up for me.Maybe costs have fallen recently but the technology is old hat (we’ve been building big walls in the sea since napoleonic times) so I’d be surprised.
I think Mark Shorrock admitted that Swansea bay would be £150 per MWh if done on an equivalent basis to the Hinckley deal
Seven years ago maybe. When the price of offshore wind was what? About £150 per MWh....
Take it from me, Cardiff Lagoon gets built - by the private sector with no state subsidies - at prices around £50 -£55. Zero carbon, zero waste. Guaranteed delivery, 14 hours a day from each lagoon for the next 120 years - minimum. The consortium to build it, headed by Costain, is ready to go with tidal lagoons.
Somebody REALLY needs to start asking why a handful of civil servants have been so intent on blocking tidal lagoons. Ed Miliband, maybe?
Why has the cost come down by 67%? Seems hard to believe.
And does your £50 include running and maintenance costs?
Do you agree that if it's £150 then there's no justification to build it?
It's not £150.
It's £50 - £55. I am talking the nuclear scale Cardiff lagoon. You are talking stand-alone Swansea Bay lagoon testbed, back in the day.
The Govt. were offered the building of Swansea and Cardiff together at a price of £60. Several years ago. That was blocked by, yes you guessed it - the civil servants.
I see thanks. £150 is so out of it no wonder it wasn't taken seriously, if that one is so exchortbitantly expensive then why was it included with the other one? Why not just do Cardiff standalone if it's 1/3rd of the price to do them together?
The fact that the complaint came up when the proposal was announced is telling.
Scotland sets its income tax rates - income tax raised in Scotland goes to Scotland. The solution lies in Edinburgh, not London. I hope Scotland's teachers/policemen/firemen are happy that they're not "essential".
How he expects Johnson to fix a problem within the gift of Sturgeon is a bit of a mystery....why not gross it up? The Scottish government will get the money back anyway....
If you gross up the optics are terrible, consultants getting 925 quiddies while nurses and carers only get 625. Outrage!
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Have just been chatting to Betfair (not the easiest thing in the world to do but I managed it) and it sounds like they may settle Arizona 'soon'.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases, recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
Good on you. Well done!
I was speaking to one of their most junior employees on the chat line. I find juniors are apt to give a rather more honest and unguarded answer than their superiors and it proved to be the case here. 'Ben' was obviously sympatico, and tried to get some sense out of the traders. At first they fobbed him off by referring to 'Inauguration Day', but when I hit the roof he had another go. This time they indicated that they would check out the link I gave them and if indeed the Arizona result had been certified they might consider settling soon. Then they backtracked, and simply said they didn't know when it would be settled.
I'll give it to mid-morning tomorrow and if they haven't settled by then I'll call the Gambling Commission. Since my view of the GC is only marginally more favorable than my current view of Betfair, I'm not expecting too much, but it's worth a try.
If nothing else, I can wind them up a bit. I enjoy that kind of thing.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
Have just been chatting to Betfair (not the easiest thing in the world to do but I managed it) and it sounds like they may settle Arizona 'soon'.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases, recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
I have a genuine open mind on all this. It has always seemed feasible to me that the huge scale and rapid ramping up of testing might lead to poor quality and here is someone with decades of experience arguing that that is precisely what is happening.
Yeah right, one mention of the horrible EU mixed with a small flutter of anti-wokery from Boris and she will use the same hyperbole to say how important it is to vote Boris 2024.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
Are we sure they actually died of covid? I'm not sure we can be. There seems to be some oddities going on. But as I say I have an open mind on all this.
Have just been chatting to Betfair (not the easiest thing in the world to do but I managed it) and it sounds like they may settle Arizona 'soon'.
The market question was: 'Which party will win the popular vote in the named state at the 2020 US presidential election?'
Now that the result has been certified, it is very hard to see why the market should not be settled. I guess though that Betfair do not want to do that because it would make their stand on the main Presidential market even more preposterous than it is at the moment.
If they come back with more bullshit about the Electoral College, legal cases, recounts and other red herrings, I think I'll give the Gambling Commission a call. Might be fun trying to shake them out of their torpor.
Good on you. Well done!
I was speaking to one of their most junior employees on the chat line. I find juniors are apt to give a rather more honest and unguarded answer than their superiors and it proved to be the case here. 'Ben' was obviously sympatico, and tried to get some sense out of the traders. At first they fobbed him off by referring to 'Inauguration Day', but when I hit the roof he had another go. This time they indicated that they would check out the link I gave them and if indeed the Arizona result had been certified they might consider settling soon. Then they backtracked, and simply said they didn't know when it would be settled.
I'll give it to mid-morning tomorrow and if they haven't settled by then I'll call the Gambling Commission. Since my view of the GC is only marginally more favorable than my current view of Betfair, I'm not expecting too much, but it's worth a try.
If nothing else, I can wind them up a bit. I enjoy that kind of thing.
Based on that comment she expects no restrictions whatsoever, no matter what happens, and that even during a pandemic there should be no job losses or businesses lost at all? What bet she also doesn't want to spend much in preventing people becoming unemployed to boot?
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
Are we sure they actually died of covid? I'm not sure we can be. There seems to be some oddities going on. But as I say I have an open mind on all this.
Yes we can. Excess deaths have shot up dramatically.
If you have an open mind then the evidence of hospitalisations and deaths should have disabused the wishful thinking about false positives.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
I have a genuine open mind on all this. It has always seemed feasible to me that the huge scale and rapid ramping up of testing might lead to poor quality and here is someone with decades of experience arguing that that is precisely what is happening.
Why would ramping up testing numbers see the percentage of tests coming back positive rise dramatically?
Why would false positives coincide with dramatically rising hospitalisations and deaths which is what caused the lockdown NOT rising positives.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
I have a genuine open mind on all this. It has always seemed feasible to me that the huge scale and rapid ramping up of testing might lead to poor quality and here is someone with decades of experience arguing that that is precisely what is happening.
Why would ramping up testing numbers see the percentage of tests coming back positive rise dramatically?
Why would false positives coincide with dramatically rising hospitalisations and deaths which is what caused the lockdown NOT rising positives.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Given wind is a fraction of the nuclear cost then why not scrap the nuclear and use it as purely wind plus hydrogen etc as a backup?
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph has been to the cinema.
The 30 best Christmas movies of all time From ‘have yourself a merry little Christmas’ to ‘yippee-ki-yay!’ –- we round up 30 of the silver screen’s festive crackers
A Gove critic said, “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
I was interviewed by her when she was on LBC in 2014 about some legal development that had just taken place - for the life of me I can’t remember what the precise employment law topic was, but I’ll never forget my sheer terror when towards the end of the short piece she tried to bounce me into agreeing that teachers were basically feckless and lazy but harder to put through disciplinary procedures which was clearly a *bad thing*. I had no idea what to say without getting into an argument, which wouldn’t have gone down that well with the firm, so I came up with some half hearted legal waffle. Not great radio. I haven’t been asked back.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
I was interviewed by her when she was on LBC in 2014 about some legal development that had just taken place - for the life of me I can’t remember what the precise employment law topic was, but I’ll never forget my sheer terror when towards the end of the short piece she tried to bounce me into agreeing that teachers were basically feckless and lazy but harder to put through disciplinary procedures which was clearly a *bad thing*. I had no idea what to say without getting into an argument, which wouldn’t have gone down that well with the firm, so I came up with some half hearted legal waffle. Not great radio. I haven’t been asked back.
If they didn't want half hearted legal waffle they shouldn't have asked a lawyer in the first place.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
A Gove critic said, “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts with organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
Wrong.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
I have a genuine open mind on all this. It has always seemed feasible to me that the huge scale and rapid ramping up of testing might lead to poor quality and here is someone with decades of experience arguing that that is precisely what is happening.
In such a way as to perfectly track the increased hospital and ICU admissions monitored independently by ICNARC for respiratory illnesses ten days later. And to track the deaths from the same cause about ten days after that (occurring statistically at a rate an order of magnitude and more beyond that expected for those tested). For exactly the same symptoms as covid. Providing a ramp up of excess deaths further independently monitored.
While exactly the same false positive spike occurs in France, coincident with an identical rush into their hospitals ten days later and an identical spike of deaths after that.
And in Germany. And in Italy. And in Austria.
Oh, and Sweden. And Spain. And Belgium.
While Slovakia sees exactly the same thing, institutes a widespread testing regime using a completely different method that just happens to see the same thing (and therefore not only has an identical rate of false positives but even magically assigns them to exactly the same people), isolates them, and for some reason, brings down their false positive rate.
The Czech Republic also sees the false positives - hospitalisation - deaths thing from the same symptoms of covid as well. As does Poland. And the Netherlands. And it’s not just here. Russia sees it. Iran sees it. Canada sees it. Independently, every State in the US sees it. North and South Dakota mysteriously have one in a thousand of their population die from it.
All while this guys argument would see more false positives by far than the actual number of total positives recorded again and again and again.
I don’t think it needs an open mind to believe all that (I did find it amusing that the top two articles on lockdown sceptics were that the epidemic was fake ever since June... and had peaked in October, anyway. Umm...)
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Given wind is a fraction of the nuclear cost then why not scrap the nuclear and use it as purely wind plus hydrogen etc as a backup?
Like the man said, hydrogen is entirely safe - as long as you remember it is insanely dangerous.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Because they're wishing the pandemic away.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
I have a genuine open mind on all this. It has always seemed feasible to me that the huge scale and rapid ramping up of testing might lead to poor quality and here is someone with decades of experience arguing that that is precisely what is happening.
Why would ramping up testing numbers see the percentage of tests coming back positive rise dramatically?
Why would false positives coincide with dramatically rising hospitalisations and deaths which is what caused the lockdown NOT rising positives.
What caused that?
"By September, the great bulk of PCR testing was being run by large, private labs, some of which are called Lighthouse Labs"
"The percentage of tests which were returning positive started skyrocketing, reaching in some towns values that were close to those in A&E at the peak of the pandemic in April. Strong linkage was observed between numbers of tests run and their positivity. This is most odd and can happen if the error rate increases with the pressure on the testing system."
The Tory revolt over tiers story is dull - I mean, it’s going to pass easily.
There’s an easy mitigating compromise, just let people drink pints in pubs without this ludicrous food rule. It’s just stupid.
Both Boris' new tiers and his Brexit Deal may now pass with Labour support or abstention, Starmer unlike Corbyn has decided it is better to support the government where he largely agrees and expose rebels on the Tory backbenches opposed to lockdown and No Deal diehards
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
Are we sure they actually died of covid? I'm not sure we can be. There seems to be some oddities going on. But as I say I have an open mind on all this.
Then what DID they die from? We know it was a respiratory illness that followed exactly the same symptom progression as covid. We know that far, far more people died within twenty eight days of testing positive than would be expected if it was just random chance. So something is happening to kill them. That something is a respiratory illness that follows the exact same progression and symptoms as covid. It even, when tested for antibodies, produces the same antibodies as covid.
So - what is it, then, if not covid? Something’s killing them.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
Wrong.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
Well, perfect in the circumstances.
Mayor Pete might have won too, possibly more easily. Amy Klobuchar might have done so too. Not sure about the rest. Suspect Bernie and Elizabeth would have got beat.
It's probably telling that it was Biden that Trump went for before he'd even become the Nominee, even going so far as to blackmail the Ukranian President into giving up compromising details on Biden. This does suggest that whatever we thought, Trump regarded Sleepy Joe as the main danger.
It’s not clear to me why there is any debate about Die Hard being a Christmas film. The entire premise of the picture requires the tower block to be deserted - hence Christmas. Although the massive plot hole is why would any company hold its Christmas party on Christmas Eve? Don’t those people have homes to go to?
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Given wind is a fraction of the nuclear cost then why not scrap the nuclear and use it as purely wind plus hydrogen etc as a backup?
Like the man said, hydrogen is entirely safe - as long as you remember it is insanely dangerous.
Tidal is stupidly safe.
How much more dangerous is hydrogen than natural gas?
The Tory revolt over tiers story is dull - I mean, it’s going to pass easily.
There’s an easy mitigating compromise, just let people drink pints in pubs without this ludicrous food rule. It’s just stupid.
I dunno. I think the strong possibility that, depending on the size of the rebellion, he could only get legislation through with the tacit support of the Opposition quite significant. Labour could not, in good conscience, have opposed. Neither could they support it and keep many of their own on side. But if the rebellion is 41 or more Tory MPs, many on that side will nervously note that Starmer could have inflicted quite a serious defeat on the Government had he felt so inclined. Also encourages further revolts.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
Are we sure they actually died of covid? I'm not sure we can be. There seems to be some oddities going on. But as I say I have an open mind on all this.
Yes, they are covid deaths.
The number of bus accidents on our respiratory wards and intensive care is precisely zero
The Tory revolt over tiers story is dull - I mean, it’s going to pass easily.
There’s an easy mitigating compromise, just let people drink pints in pubs without this ludicrous food rule. It’s just stupid.
Both Boris' new tiers and his Brexit Deal may now pass with Labour support or abstention, Starmer unlike Corbyn has decided it is better to support the government where he largely agrees and expose rebels on the Tory backbenches opposed to lockdown and No Deal diehards
Stop posting things I agree with. It’s doing my head in.
It’s not clear to me why there is any debate about Die Hard being a Christmas film. The entire premise of the picture requires the tower block to be deserted - hence Christmas. Although the massive plot hole is why would any company hold its Christmas party on Christmas Eve? Don’t those people have homes to go to?
The debate's all in good fun, but for me the principal argument is just a semantic one about the themes of the movie, and whether if you swapped it out reference to Christmas with, say, thanksgiving, or some other holiday where very few would be working, would it work just as well? Is it a Christmas movie or just a movie that happens to take place at Christmas? Was Jack Reacher 2 a halloween movie after all?
Being honest it has some elements of common Christmas movie themes of family and redemption (and of course people will disagree on what 'makes' a Christmas movie anyway) that maybe it passes muster, but it's just a silly argument anyway since it's an action movie first and foremost, and whether it 'succeeds' as a Christmas movie is rather secondary as to whether it suceeds at that.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Given wind is a fraction of the nuclear cost then why not scrap the nuclear and use it as purely wind plus hydrogen etc as a backup?
Like the man said, hydrogen is entirely safe - as long as you remember it is insanely dangerous.
Tidal is stupidly safe.
How much more dangerous is hydrogen than natural gas?
Research shows that on balance the risk is roughly the same in a domestic setting.
The thing is, Lab supporters, presumably want a Lab govt because they believe that just about everything would be better handled by Lab. Or at least that should be the line that the party leader should promote.
If SKS starts saying that actually the Cons have got this one right, then how does he combat those saying that the same government that got this right, as endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, no less, will obviously get just about everything else right also. Because they are the same govt doing all the everything else.
Not at all. I've been a Labour member for 49 years. I don't think we're always best. To be specific, I prefer the current Government's proposals on agriculture to the previous Labour one's, on condition that they deliver on what they say. That doesn't mean I agree with them on Universal Credit or taxation or a load of other things. Does ANYONE think their party, or country, or spouse is always right?
On Brexit, Starmer should consider the alternatives on offer, comment on them, and choose the least evil option. It's the right thing to do, and also sensible opposition policy.
I am always happy to confirm that my party have been complete twats in continuing to build stupidly expensive and risky nuclear power when they have the second largest tidal ranges in the world, able to deliver dependable zero carbon, zero waste power into the middle of the next century at a fraction of the cost.
Still, no doubt the next Labour Govt. will build them and get the credit.
Why are you giving up on this Government? And why would the fact we have nuclear mean we don't need tidal? It can replace shit like biomass. Policies and politics change. Lobby Sunak.
We will very likely need a large amount of nuclear electricity generation to avoid frequent power cuts. Too much faith in wind at the moment. Tidal may well also be a good idea. The current plans are horribly fragile. Better to have excess non-wind capacity producing hydrogen when not needed which can then be used for artificial gas and petrol production to avoid the disasters looming for domestic heating and road transport.
Eh?
Firstly, nuclear uptime is terrible, so you have to build backup natural gas for when it's not working.
Secondly, as the natural gas fired power generation is cheaper (by at least 50%), why not simply use that rather than nuclear?
We are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2, the aim of all of this high risk restructuring of society. New nuclear would be a reliable energy source. If we have wind as a major component we need a lot of redundancy so use significant nuclear and when there is excess energy when the wind is blowing create hydrogen from water and then use that to create artificial fuels using CO2 from carbon capture or from water.
Given wind is a fraction of the nuclear cost then why not scrap the nuclear and use it as purely wind plus hydrogen etc as a backup?
Like the man said, hydrogen is entirely safe - as long as you remember it is insanely dangerous.
Tidal is stupidly safe.
How much more dangerous is hydrogen than natural gas?
Research shows that on balance the risk is roughly the same in a domestic setting.
As long as it explodes in a specific and limited way you are golden.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
Wrong.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
Well, perfect in the circumstances.
Mayor Pete might have won too, possibly more easily. Amy Klobuchar might have done so too. Not sure about the rest. Suspect Bernie and Elizabeth would have got beat.
It's probably telling that it was Biden that Trump went for before he'd even become the Nominee, even going so far as to blackmail the Ukranian President into giving up compromising details on Biden. This does suggest that whatever we thought, Trump regarded Sleepy Joe as the main danger.
I find it hard to imagine a President Pete or President Amy counterfactual. Admittedly they had a greater chance than the two lefties.
Your point about Trump is sound: he feared Biden. Wisely, as it transpires.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
Wrong.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
Well, perfect in the circumstances.
Mayor Pete might have won too, possibly more easily. Amy Klobuchar might have done so too. Not sure about the rest. Suspect Bernie and Elizabeth would have got beat.
It's probably telling that it was Biden that Trump went for before he'd even become the Nominee, even going so far as to blackmail the Ukranian President into giving up compromising details on Biden. This does suggest that whatever we thought, Trump regarded Sleepy Joe as the main danger.
The question is whether Biden won or Trump lost, and it seems to me it's the latter. That is why Republicans did better in the House, Senate and State races.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Why, indeed? I think that's an excellent question. Being flattered that their opinion is sought? A feeling of power? Self-promotion? Or simply getting a bee in their bonnet and being unable to challenge their own beliefs enough to see that there's nothing in their theory?
Whatever the reason, it's still ignorant nonsense. As any actual public health, epidemiology, expert in PCR, or statistician will tell you.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
Why would someone with 30 years senior level experience in R&D for respiratory medications keep writing articles that are "ignorant nonsense"?
Why, indeed? I think that's an excellent question. Being flattered that their opinion is sought? A feeling of power? Self-promotion? Or simply getting a bee in their bonnet and being unable to challenge their own beliefs enough to see that there's nothing in their theory?
Whatever the reason, it's still ignorant nonsense. As any actual public health, epidemiology, expert in PCR, or statistician will tell you.
"I think the evidence is unequivocal that we are in a PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic"
"Viruses don’t do waves (beyond the secondary ripple concept as outlined above). I have repeatedly asked to see the trove of scientific papers used to predict a ‘second wave’ and to build a model to compute its likely size and timing. They have never been forthcoming. It’s almost as if there is no such foundational literature. I’m sure SAGE can put us right on this."
This article raises some very interesting issues about the scale and quality of PCR testing.
It raises nothing interesting. It makes assertions without evidence or selectively quotes sources that are contradicted by both the body of scientific opinion and subsequent fact. It's ignorant nonsense. Don't fall for it.
--AS
He's been doing it for months. Obsessed that false positives are the issue despite hospitalisations and deaths following the same course of the positives.
Are we sure they actually died of covid? I'm not sure we can be. There seems to be some oddities going on. But as I say I have an open mind on all this.
You have an open mind for one side of the argument (advanced by a tiny number of not-actually-experts in this area) and closed for the other (advanced by everyone else, plus the evidence of hospitalization and deaths).
"There seems to be some oddities going on" is the faux-naivete of the bullshit spreader.
"A scotch egg is a "substantial meal", a Cabinet minister has claimed, raising hopes that hundreds of traditional pubs across England could still reopen on Wednesday under the regional tiers system."
It’s not clear to me why there is any debate about Die Hard being a Christmas film. The entire premise of the picture requires the tower block to be deserted - hence Christmas. Although the massive plot hole is why would any company hold its Christmas party on Christmas Eve? Don’t those people have homes to go to?
The debate's all in good fun, but for me the principal argument is just a semantic one about the themes of the movie, and whether if you swapped it out reference to Christmas with, say, thanksgiving, or some other holiday where very few would be working, would it work just as well? Is it a Christmas movie or just a movie that happens to take place at Christmas? Was Jack Reacher 2 a halloween movie after all?
Being honest it has some elements of common Christmas movie themes of family and redemption (and of course people will disagree on what 'makes' a Christmas movie anyway) that maybe it passes muster, but it's just a silly argument anyway since it's an action movie first and foremost, and whether it 'succeeds' as a Christmas movie is rather secondary as to whether it suceeds at that.
Fair analysis but you fail to answer my poser about the party.
Maybe in a later picture it will be revealed that it was an inside job. Some corrupt HR/events manager engineered to hold the party on Christmas Eve for a share of Gruber’s loot.
While Trump continues to complain, the house results are getting better and better for the Reps. It now looks like the Reps could gain 12 districts giving the Dems a majority of only 9. That said a couple of results could still end up in court. In Iowa 2, the Rep leads by 6 votes after a recount, and in NY22 the Rep currently leads by 12 or 13 votes.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
Compared to 2016 the Dems are up in the Senate and the House.
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
Biden was in many ways a terrible candidate whose sole policy was not being Donald Trump, which was enough for Biden personally to win the Presidency but he had no coat tails bringing along Democrats in the down-ticket races, and has no mandate to do anything in particular apart from smash the tweet machine. On the plus side, no more Trump and please wear a mask.
Wrong.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
Well, perfect in the circumstances.
Mayor Pete might have won too, possibly more easily. Amy Klobuchar might have done so too. Not sure about the rest. Suspect Bernie and Elizabeth would have got beat.
It's probably telling that it was Biden that Trump went for before he'd even become the Nominee, even going so far as to blackmail the Ukranian President into giving up compromising details on Biden. This does suggest that whatever we thought, Trump regarded Sleepy Joe as the main danger.
The question is whether Biden won or Trump lost, and it seems to me it's the latter. That is why Republicans did better in the House, Senate and State races.
Yes, you have only to think of the blunders Trump made. If he'd handled Covid better, or if he'd only refrained from his dumb remarks on postal voting, or on the military....and so on.
We really are very fortunate to be getting rid of him.
Now, what about the other clown currently in charge of a leading Western Democracy?
Comments
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/swansea-bay-costings/
Are the numbers wrong? If so do you have a source to what the numbers actually are? If the numbers are a third of what are being quoted there should be some credible reports somewhere detailing that?
It's £50 - £55. I am talking the nuclear scale Cardiff lagoon. You are talking stand-alone Swansea Bay lagoon testbed, back in the day.
The Govt. were offered the building of Swansea and Cardiff together at a price of £60. Several years ago. That was blocked by, yes you guessed it - the civil servants.
It really looks like less than a wholehearted endorsement of the Dems and the ousting of Trump masks wider problems.
I would argue that the big problem the Dems have is their support is deep but not wide. For example, Biden won Minnesota comfortably but the Reps won 5 out of the 8 congressional districts (the districts are not gerrymandered).
The Cook PVIs of the districts are as follows:
D+26 (Minneapolis)
D+14 (St Paul)
D+1
R+2
R+4
R+5
R+12
R+12
It's a similar story in Pennsylvania where Biden won the state but the delegation is split 9-9. The 2 Philadelphia districts are D+41 and D+25.
The Dems problems are likely to get worse after reapportionment. For the first time, California is likely to lose an electoral vote. This is partly because some Republicans are getting fed up with state's increasingly left wing policies and are moving to Texas and Idaho. We could end up with a situation where the Dems need to be 5% ahead in the national vote to win.
--AS
Time will tell I guess!
Seems fishy.
https://twitter.com/JohnFerry18/status/1333497909736853504?s=20
I'll give it to mid-morning tomorrow and if they haven't settled by then I'll call the Gambling Commission. Since my view of the GC is only marginally more favorable than my current view of Betfair, I'm not expecting too much, but it's worth a try.
If nothing else, I can wind them up a bit. I enjoy that kind of thing.
Why would anyone educated keep sharing this false positives bullshit?
" 'But we cannot ignore the evidence.'
On the contrary, ignoring the evidence is precisely what Gove appears to do throughout his essay."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/michael-gove-s-lockdown-claims-a-review-of-the-evidence
As an Opposition, Labour should be taking the opposite position on these issues.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1333472924427300866?s=20
They certainly should.
If you have an open mind then the evidence of hospitalisations and deaths should have disabused the wishful thinking about false positives.
https://reaction.life/christmas-coming-early-theres-never-been-a-right-time-to-put-up-the-decorations/
Next week: Is Die Hard a xmas movie?
Why would false positives coincide with dramatically rising hospitalisations and deaths which is what caused the lockdown NOT rising positives.
What caused that?
The 30 best Christmas movies of all time
From ‘have yourself a merry little Christmas’ to ‘yippee-ki-yay!’ –- we round up 30 of the silver screen’s festive crackers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/30-best-christmas-movies-time/
Agree with your points about re District ing that is upcoming.
There’s an easy mitigating compromise, just let people drink pints in pubs without this ludicrous food rule. It’s just stupid.
Biden was the perfect candidate, almost certainly the only primary contender who could have won.
And he may well be an excellent president. Conciliatory and measured. Exactly what a polarised nation needs.
While exactly the same false positive spike occurs in France, coincident with an identical rush into their hospitals ten days later and an identical spike of deaths after that.
And in Germany. And in Italy. And in Austria.
Oh, and Sweden. And Spain. And Belgium.
While Slovakia sees exactly the same thing, institutes a widespread testing regime using a completely different method that just happens to see the same thing (and therefore not only has an identical rate of false positives but even magically assigns them to exactly the same people), isolates them, and for some reason, brings down their false positive rate.
The Czech Republic also sees the false positives - hospitalisation - deaths thing from the same symptoms of covid as well. As does Poland. And the Netherlands. And it’s not just here. Russia sees it. Iran sees it. Canada sees it. Independently, every State in the US sees it. North and South Dakota mysteriously have one in a thousand of their population die from it.
All while this guys argument would see more false positives by far than the actual number of total positives recorded again and again and again.
I don’t think it needs an open mind to believe all that (I did find it amusing that the top two articles on lockdown sceptics were that the epidemic was fake ever since June... and had peaked in October, anyway. Umm...)
Tidal is stupidly safe.
"The percentage of tests which were returning positive started skyrocketing, reaching in some towns values that were close to those in A&E at the peak of the pandemic in April. Strong linkage was observed between numbers of tests run and their positivity. This is most odd and can happen if the error rate increases with the pressure on the testing system."
Yeadon
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333385175514959872?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333383561286737922?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1333383566974128128?s=20
We know it was a respiratory illness that followed exactly the same symptom progression as covid. We know that far, far more people died within twenty eight days of testing positive than would be expected if it was just random chance.
So something is happening to kill them. That something is a respiratory illness that follows the exact same progression and symptoms as covid. It even, when tested for antibodies, produces the same antibodies as covid.
So - what is it, then, if not covid? Something’s killing them.
Mayor Pete might have won too, possibly more easily. Amy Klobuchar might have done so too. Not sure about the rest. Suspect Bernie and Elizabeth would have got beat.
It's probably telling that it was Biden that Trump went for before he'd even become the Nominee, even going so far as to blackmail the Ukranian President into giving up compromising details on Biden. This does suggest that whatever we thought, Trump regarded Sleepy Joe as the main danger.
Lockdown 2 needs to end SOON
The number of bus accidents on our respiratory wards and intensive care is precisely zero
Being honest it has some elements of common Christmas movie themes of family and redemption (and of course people will disagree on what 'makes' a Christmas movie anyway) that maybe it passes muster, but it's just a silly argument anyway since it's an action movie first and foremost, and whether it 'succeeds' as a Christmas movie is rather secondary as to whether it suceeds at that.
Your point about Trump is sound: he feared Biden. Wisely, as it transpires.
https://twitter.com/RawStory/status/1333486095984685065
Whatever the reason, it's still ignorant nonsense. As any actual public health, epidemiology, expert in PCR, or statistician will tell you.
--AS
"There seems to be some oddities going on" is the faux-naivete of the bullshit spreader.
--AS
Maybe in a later picture it will be revealed that it was an inside job. Some corrupt HR/events manager engineered to hold the party on Christmas Eve for a share of Gruber’s loot.
We really are very fortunate to be getting rid of him.
Now, what about the other clown currently in charge of a leading Western Democracy?
https://twitter.com/CSpillmann/status/1333530030748610571?s=20