'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...?
I don't follow this point at all. If the case is meritless in terms of evidence, argument or law, then what would it matter how many States filed it? Standing is an important issue in legal matters sometimes apparently, but surely legal arguments are more significant, and if it is a nonsense case, that would not change just because people add their name to it.
I think lots of EU countries are making their own plans. I've read about Germany, Spain and Italy already, this add Poland. Hungary are also signed up to buy the no booze Russian one but they might bail out of that now.
From what I can tell the countries are getting frustrated on the lack of detail over delivery schedules and expected capacity. I think they're looking over the channel wondering why it's all happening late for a vaccine developed by a German company and manufactured in Belgium.
Well the EU ventilator scheme didn't go so well....When Czechia required them, they got all of 30, and had to beg, borrow, steal from all their neighbours.
And to think, some wanted the UK to join on purely ideological grounds.
We all remember the pasted tweets telling us we had to join the EU ventilator scheme, the EU PPE scheme, the EU vaccine scheme ...
From the same people demanding we employ a circuit breaker approach to getting COVID under control?
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
There is only so much any government can do - as always Jo Public must take responsibility for their behaviour. WRT Asia they did it better because generally they restricted individual liberties to a degree which would not be accepted elsewhere.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
Here's the problem with the Texas lawsuit.
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I wonder how many people who started lockdown #1 with the mantra to stop drinking, work out more etc are still sticking to it?
I think lots of EU countries are making their own plans. I've read about Germany, Spain and Italy already, this add Poland. Hungary are also signed up to buy the no booze Russian one but they might bail out of that now.
From what I can tell the countries are getting frustrated on the lack of detail over delivery schedules and expected capacity. I think they're looking over the channel wondering why it's all happening late for a vaccine developed by a German company and manufactured in Belgium.
Spain is not expecting to begin until next year with no serious numbers vaccinated before March.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
I think the US would be much happier as two countries.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I'm guilty of not doing that: my lockdown diet and exercise regime was aweful.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
Here's the problem with the Texas lawsuit.
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
17 states have now joined in the case. Personally, and yes from a "Trumpster", I don't think they will win but such a block will make it harder for SCOTUS to say no.
And maybe that is one of the points, or at least the silver lining if they don't do the impossible and win the case. They get to present their evidence to SCOTUS, there might be things in there that people question or where it creates doubt.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
I think the US would be much happier as two countries.
The openly racist one would be a lot less happy when the money runs out.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
That is true...although you never road tripped with me....I have done some epic ones in the US in single bursts...Chicago to New York, Atlanta to Miami....
Given the massive media attention any time a minor royal breaks wind, and the huge attention to HMTQ's comment re indyref at the time, I wouldn't be so sure.
There was something about itr in a recentlyt published political memoir, too, which rather emphasised the impoirtance Mr Cameron placed on getting Her Maj to come out with it, which ctrengthen's TSE's point considerably. But I fotget he details, not being a slavish royalist (was put off for life byt doing a scrapbook for Cub Scouts and readingf that book by Her Maj's nanny/governess).
In any case once we have a new sovereigh and PM the wish to retain a monarchy will change downwards.
Precisely, it's not necessarily such comments in themselves, it's the fawning amplification of them by our media, particularly our state broadcaster.
'queen says scots should think very carefully' gives 13.5million hits on Google, with this at the top.
Saying "think very carefully" during a referendum really ought to not be shocking.
I'd be like "I've thought carefully about it and am voting Yes".
If she'd said similar before the EU referendum, the streets would have been strewn with prolapsing Faragistas.
I think the Queen did subtly do her best to influence both refs - Indy against and Brexit for, without explicitly endorsing her preferred outcome.
I think there's some justification for that action in the national importance of both these events. Nobody would think twice about the Royal family supporting the UK against an external aggressor, so it seems somewhat unrealistic to expect them to be blase about the prospect of internal political dissolution, or (and I accept this is a more niche perspective) of external political subsumption. I wouldn't expect the monarch to take a view on other political issues.
The problem with that is that it is a Scottish monarchy first and foremost!
I agree with you, but why do you think that's the problem with it?
Just the idea that it is somehow dependent on the Union of the Parliaments. The Commonwealth show otherwise. So from her point of view it is a zero sum game unless she lets secular politics interfere. Which she is not supposed to do.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The British Monarchy is still quite central to our constitution. It isn't a toy monarchy like some German or Sicilian Prince where 'Prince' means nothing more than having an interesting title at parties on yachts in Monaco with lots of other ephemeral rich people. That would not be assured with an indy Scotland. I am sure the Monarchy would adapt elegantly to Scotland leaving, but personally I think the Queen would be devastated if it happened on her watch.
I used to be mildly supportive of the monarchy, but as I have got older it seems to me that the monarchy is quite central to the class system and stratifying the layers in English society and perhaps has no other purpose any more since the monarch will always do whatever the PM of the day says to do.
The Queen may well be devastated if Scotland goes independent on her "watch" but it is none of her business. Her job is to act as a figurehead whilst the PM gets on with the day to day running of the UK.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
Yes, Australia is effectively several New Zealands sharing the same landmass, but constituting separate epidemiological zones.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
There is only so much any government can do - as always Jo Public must take responsibility for their behaviour. WRT Asia they did it better because generally they restricted individual liberties to a degree which would not be accepted elsewhere.
Well. That point is arguable.Taiwan managed it without a lockdown. Which means they restricted liberties a heck of a lot less. There is plenty of detail on Taiwan and New Zealand here.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I wonder how many people who started lockdown #1 with the mantra to stop drinking, work out more etc are still sticking to it?
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I wonder how many people who started lockdown #1 with the mantra to stop drinking, work out more etc are still sticking to it?
I stopped working and started drinking more. So far I've managed to stick to it.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...?
I don't follow this point at all. If the case is meritless in terms of evidence, argument or law, then what would it matter how many States filed it? Standing is an important issue in legal matters sometimes apparently, but surely legal arguments are more significant, and if it is a nonsense case, that would not change just because people add their name to it.
SCOTUS can and has ignore states but there is an argument for say they shouldn't.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
That is true...although you never road tripped with me....I have done some epic ones in the US in single bursts...Chicago to New York, Atlanta to Miami....
Reading --> Inverness --> Reading as a day trip. 1150 miles.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I wonder how many people who started lockdown #1 with the mantra to stop drinking, work out more etc are still sticking to it?
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
I wonder how many people who started lockdown #1 with the mantra to stop drinking, work out more etc are still sticking to it?
I stopped working and started drinking more. So far I've managed to stick to it.
My God, @Peter_the_Punter are you sat on the couch with a 6 pack and a fag watching Coronation Street?
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
Here's the problem with the Texas lawsuit.
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
17 states have now joined in the case. Personally, and yes from a "Trumpster", I don't think they will win but such a block will make it harder for SCOTUS to say no.
And maybe that is one of the points, or at least the silver lining if they don't do the impossible and win the case. They get to present their evidence to SCOTUS, there might be things in there that people question or where it creates doubt.
So you are saying Trump is a winner, because he’s changed what would have been “and a clap for the loser” narrative into one where his base doesn’t see him as loser and he’s 300K richer than if he phoned in a concession on the night.
The really rabid anti trumpers wont admit this, but you are right.
Given the massive media attention any time a minor royal breaks wind, and the huge attention to HMTQ's comment re indyref at the time, I wouldn't be so sure.
There was something about itr in a recentlyt published political memoir, too, which rather emphasised the impoirtance Mr Cameron placed on getting Her Maj to come out with it, which ctrengthen's TSE's point considerably. But I fotget he details, not being a slavish royalist (was put off for life byt doing a scrapbook for Cub Scouts and readingf that book by Her Maj's nanny/governess).
In any case once we have a new sovereigh and PM the wish to retain a monarchy will change downwards.
Precisely, it's not necessarily such comments in themselves, it's the fawning amplification of them by our media, particularly our state broadcaster.
'queen says scots should think very carefully' gives 13.5million hits on Google, with this at the top.
Saying "think very carefully" during a referendum really ought to not be shocking.
I'd be like "I've thought carefully about it and am voting Yes".
If she'd said similar before the EU referendum, the streets would have been strewn with prolapsing Faragistas.
I think the Queen did subtly do her best to influence both refs - Indy against and Brexit for, without explicitly endorsing her preferred outcome.
I think there's some justification for that action in the national importance of both these events. Nobody would think twice about the Royal family supporting the UK against an external aggressor, so it seems somewhat unrealistic to expect them to be blase about the prospect of internal political dissolution, or (and I accept this is a more niche perspective) of external political subsumption. I wouldn't expect the monarch to take a view on other political issues.
The problem with that is that it is a Scottish monarchy first and foremost!
I agree with you, but why do you think that's the problem with it?
Just the idea that it is somehow dependent on the Union of the Parliaments. The Commonwealth show otherwise. So from her point of view it is a zero sum game unless she lets secular politics interfere. Which she is not supposed to do.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that. The British Monarchy is still quite central to our constitution. It isn't a toy monarchy like some German or Sicilian Prince where 'Prince' means nothing more than having an interesting title at parties on yachts in Monaco with lots of other ephemeral rich people. That would not be assured with an indy Scotland. I am sure the Monarchy would adapt elegantly to Scotland leaving, but personally I think the Queen would be devastated if it happened on her watch.
I used to be mildly supportive of the monarchy, but as I have got older it seems to me that the monarchy is quite central to the class system and stratifying the layers in English society and perhaps has no other purpose any more since the monarch will always do whatever the PM of the day says to do.
The Queen may well be devastated if Scotland goes independent on her "watch" but it is none of her business. Her job is to act as a figurehead whilst the PM gets on with the day to day running of the UK.
But it is, quite literally *her business*, though I support the principle that the Monarch should remain aloof from politics. Also - remember this is just my opinion, I don't know her personal thoughts.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
That is true...although you never road tripped with me....I have done some epic ones in the US in single bursts...Chicago to New York, Atlanta to Miami....
Reading --> Inverness --> Reading as a day trip. 1150 miles.
(Ivory Gull, if you were wondering.)
Once did SF to Philadelphia in an old Rambler, but it did take 12 days.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
That is true...although you never road tripped with me....I have done some epic ones in the US in single bursts...Chicago to New York, Atlanta to Miami....
Reading --> Inverness --> Reading as a day trip. 1150 miles.
(Ivory Gull, if you were wondering.)
And did you see it?
I did Brighton To Inverness once, but the return leg was more gentile via the lakes.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
There is only so much any government can do - as always Jo Public must take responsibility for their behaviour. WRT Asia they did it better because generally they restricted individual liberties to a degree which would not be accepted elsewhere.
Well. That point is arguable.Taiwan managed it without a lockdown. Which means they restricted liberties a heck of a lot less. There is plenty of detail on Taiwan and New Zealand here.
Essentially. Preparation. Mask wearing as a culture. Effective border controls. Enforced quarantine. Tracking. Experience of SARS.
Both examples for different reasons are much more able to 'cutoff' the RotW. NZ is a very small country in terms of people. Neither can really be compared to typical western countries. Mask wearing is now pretty universal in Spain but on its own is not enough.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
What's odd is plenty of these folk recover. Whereas others in reasonable health don't.
On excess deaths, I've looked at the non-COVID deaths since Week 21 (week-ending 22 May for this year) in excess of the five year average (i.e. the last 27 weeks when most of the COVID deaths have been picked up in the data). I've compared the figures to previous years for the same time period:
Since 2014 the trend has been for deaths to exceed the five year average, presumably due to our aging population. The 2018 figure may be a bit lower as it followed the Beast From The East, which took out quite a lot of people in March of that year.
Anyway, the -9,493 is a pretty substantial number. Perhaps we'd have had a negative number even without COVID, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that it represents the shadow of COVID (i.e. they're already dead).
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
Er... Germany still has about over a quarter of the deaths per million of the UK, France, Spain or Italy.
I think lots of EU countries are making their own plans. I've read about Germany, Spain and Italy already, this add Poland. Hungary are also signed up to buy the no booze Russian one but they might bail out of that now.
From what I can tell the countries are getting frustrated on the lack of detail over delivery schedules and expected capacity. I think they're looking over the channel wondering why it's all happening late for a vaccine developed by a German company and manufactured in Belgium.
Well the EU ventilator scheme didn't go so well....When Czechia required them, they got all of 30, and had to beg, borrow, steal from all their neighbours.
And to think, some wanted the UK to join on purely ideological grounds.
Though none were used in the end. The limiting factor is staff. ICU is very staff intensive too.
Similarly the EU vaccine scheme didn't prevent individual nations making their own purchases.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
What's odd is plenty of these folk recover. Whereas others in reasonable health don't.
Seems that may be about how the immune system reacts but there's a lot we don't know I guess.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
What's odd is plenty of these folk recover. Whereas others in reasonable health don't.
When I got pneumonia a couple of years ago, I was the fittest I had been probably as an adult, and it took me 6 months to recover.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
Here's the problem with the Texas lawsuit.
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
That is not the distinction as I understand it.
The distinction is that the mail in rules of Florida, Utah, North Carolina and others were made by the legislatures of those states. The rules of the states being sued were at least partially made by officials and not by legislatures. The constitution explicitly states that election rules must be made by legislatures and not by officials, or indeed courts.
Texas et all are claiming the sued states violated the constitution in framing their election rules. And that therefore those elections are unconstitutional.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
I think the US would be much happier as two countries.
Probably. Trouble is the two halves of the one country (the seaboards) are thousands of miles from each other !
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I think lots of EU countries are making their own plans. I've read about Germany, Spain and Italy already, this add Poland. Hungary are also signed up to buy the no booze Russian one but they might bail out of that now.
From what I can tell the countries are getting frustrated on the lack of detail over delivery schedules and expected capacity. I think they're looking over the channel wondering why it's all happening late for a vaccine developed by a German company and manufactured in Belgium.
Well the EU ventilator scheme didn't go so well....When Czechia required them, they got all of 30, and had to beg, borrow, steal from all their neighbours.
And to think, some wanted the UK to join on purely ideological grounds.
Though none were used in the end. The limiting factor is staff. ICU is very staff intensive too.
Similarly the EU vaccine scheme didn't prevent individual nations making their own purchases.
Just a shame the EU vaccine scheme prevents you from getting any vaccines.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
The number of countries who "done good", with similar Western liberal values / economies, is now down to basically Australia and New Zealand.
I think Australia is the most interesting case, as unlike New Zealand, they have large direct connections to China and several very large dense cities. Amazing what shutting your border quickly, sensible hotel based quarantine system and restricting travel between states can do.
It does help that the individual provinces in Australia are often two day drives from each other.
On excess deaths, I've looked at the non-COVID deaths since Week 21 (week-ending 22 May for this year) in excess of the five year average (i.e. the last 27 weeks when most of the COVID deaths have been picked up in the data). I've compared the figures to previous years for the same time period:
Since 2014 the trend has been for deaths to exceed the five year average, presumably due to our aging population. The 2018 figure may be a bit lower as it followed the Beast From The East, which took out quite a lot of people in March of that year.
Anyway, the -9,493 is a pretty substantial number. Perhaps we'd have had a negative number even without COVID, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that it represents the shadow of COVID (i.e. they're already dead).
Or most likely, those most at risk from winter respiratory ailments are isolating at home away from the coughing throngs, who incidentally seem to be coughing less anyway. Substantially better hygiene may also be a factor.
“Long-term, unrecognised spread of SARS-CoV-2 in northern Italy would help explain, at least in part, the devastating impact and rapid course of the first wave of COVID-19 in Lombardy.”
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
That's a good point, but in upholding the Texas claim, the Supreme Court would not be overturning the result of the election.
They would merely be ruling the election in four states unconstitutional, and returning the power to choose electors in those four states to their legislatures.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
What's odd is plenty of these folk recover. Whereas others in reasonable health don't.
When I got pneumonia a couple of years ago, I was the fittest I had been probably as an adult, and it took me 6 months to recover.
Yep. Had pneumonia and pleurisy when I was 7/8. Even at that age it was a good 5 months. Am 54 now, and, thankfully, have never been anywhere near as ill since.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
Is that the one with Pierce Brosnan as a Soviet agent? I have it on DVD... somewhere
On excess deaths, I've looked at the non-COVID deaths since Week 21 (week-ending 22 May for this year) in excess of the five year average (i.e. the last 27 weeks when most of the COVID deaths have been picked up in the data). I've compared the figures to previous years for the same time period:
Since 2014 the trend has been for deaths to exceed the five year average, presumably due to our aging population. The 2018 figure may be a bit lower as it followed the Beast From The East, which took out quite a lot of people in March of that year.
Anyway, the -9,493 is a pretty substantial number. Perhaps we'd have had a negative number even without COVID, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that it represents the shadow of COVID (i.e. they're already dead).
Or most likely, those most at risk from winter respiratory ailments are isolating at home away from the coughing throngs, who incidentally seem to be coughing less anyway. Substantially better hygiene may also be a factor.
Wouldn't we be doing a bit better in terms of COVID deaths if that were the case?
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
If SCOTUS does not take the case the federation may also be finished because the suing states would think the contract they have signed is not worth that much.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
It is strange how second time around we aren't getting the nightly look how shit the UK is doing compared to rest of Europe from the media.
The figures are pretty grim everywhere* and to an extent that becomes the new normal, and 500 deaths from covid is no longer a headline.
*except the Western Pacific nations.
Except that the British media, eg Piers Morgan, were obsessed with the fact that we were doing exceptionally badly, and everyone involved should be burned at the stake.
Some of us at the time said, well, let's wait and see, this is going to last a year or two, at the end maybe we will all look roughly the same
As of now that second opinion looks valid. Britain took a tough first punch because we are a very open, global, trading, multicultural nation with a vast world city at its heart. Ideal conditions for spreading a bug like covid, before it is noticed.
Now the virus is hunting more obscure prey in eastern Europe, the Mid East, south Africa, etc
Don't get me wrong. HMG of the UK fucked up in multiple ways. But I'm increasingly unsure about any western countries which did NOT fuck up. Asia did it all better than any of us.
There is only so much any government can do - as always Jo Public must take responsibility for their behaviour. WRT Asia they did it better because generally they restricted individual liberties to a degree which would not be accepted elsewhere.
Well. That point is arguable.Taiwan managed it without a lockdown. Which means they restricted liberties a heck of a lot less. There is plenty of detail on Taiwan and New Zealand here.
Essentially. Preparation. Mask wearing as a culture. Effective border controls. Enforced quarantine. Tracking. Experience of SARS.
Both examples for different reasons are much more able to 'cutoff' the RotW. NZ is a very small country in terms of people. Neither can really be compared to typical western countries. Mask wearing is now pretty universal in Spain but on its own is not enough.
A point which I would say is both entirely reasonable and also arguable.
There is an oddity in the ONS death figures (latest given in link below - see fig 2) that I can't fathom. Maybe the PB brains trust can help?
3,000 a week are dying with flu/pneumonia as a contributing factor, but hardly anyone is dying due directly to these two. Whereas with covid deaths it is the reverse. 3,000 a week covid deaths. Most of the covid deaths are due to the disease and not with it as a contributor.
I guess it comes down to whether they think the person was going to snuff it soon and COVID/Flu/Pneumonia finished them off.
Pneumonia is traditionally known as Old Man's Friend I believe. But I don't see why covid wouldn't be the same: lots of frail people with complex multiple age-related issues succumb with covid, not because of it directly. I think it's odd.
Often it is directly the cause of death, and age is the biggest risk factor for death, not co morbidities.
In terms of writing death certificates, covid can either be listed as the primary cause, or an underlying factor to acute renal failure for example.
It doesn't matter much, in terms of statistics as both are included in the ONS stats, rightly.
For detail on how to complete death certificates see here:
Death Certificates are generally completed by the Junior doctor looking after the patient. There is no central instruction in how to complete, other than the above, and certainly no incentive to complete in any particular diagnosis.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
I felt slightly sorry for a hotel worker who stopped off at the shop outside his accommodation for a bottle of water (£3500) but not the old fool who thought if he drank his pint by himself in the pub that counted as "isolating". A couple of seasonal workers who couldn't pay were sent to prison instead.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
That's a good point, but in upholding the Texas claim, the Supreme Court would not be overturning the result of the election.
They would merely be ruling the election in four states unconstitutional, and returning the power to choose electors in those four states to their legislatures.
(I think!).
The part of an election where you decide who wins based on the way the voters voted is kind of the key bit of it
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
If SCOTUS does not take the case the federation may also be finished because the suing states would think the contract they have signed is not worth that much.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
If SCOTUS does not take the case the federation may also be finished because the suing states would think the contract they have signed is not worth that much.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
If SCOTUS does not take the case the federation may also be finished because the suing states would think the contract they have signed is not worth that much.
It's hard to believe the suing States think there is any merit in the cases. They are just playing to the gallery, no?
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Likewise the other two, but we don't yet have that much of a plan for what to do about it, and trends in diet (away from meat and dairy, toward vegetarianism, or worse, veganism) exacerbate the issue.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
That's a good point, but in upholding the Texas claim, the Supreme Court would not be overturning the result of the election.
They would merely be ruling the election in four states unconstitutional, and returning the power to choose electors in those four states to their legislatures.
(I think!).
Surely, under the law, it is now too late for even that, as safe harbor has passed.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Source? A lot of folk in the more northern climes and of more melanated skin yes, but less so down south and paler.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
Here's the problem with the Texas lawsuit.
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
17 states have now joined in the case. Personally, and yes from a "Trumpster", I don't think they will win but such a block will make it harder for SCOTUS to say no.
And maybe that is one of the points, or at least the silver lining if they don't do the impossible and win the case. They get to present their evidence to SCOTUS, there might be things in there that people question or where it creates doubt.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Are you deficient Gallowgate? In Vitamin D I mean?
They have totally overplayed their hand, they think we will submit, we will not submit, we are Britain, fuck em all. We are superior to them and we have never been Nazis and they are evil.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Likewise the other two, but we don't yet have that much of a plan for what to do about it, and trends in diet (away from meat and dairy, toward vegetarianism, or worse, veganism) exacerbate the issue.
Vitamin d is quite tricky to supplement too. It’s not clear that giving vit d actually increases levels. Like so much in biology it’s really complex. Homeostasis plays a huge role in setting levels of just about everything in the body, and supplements are often just making expensive urine and excreta.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Source? A lot of folk in the more northern climes and of more melanated skin yes, but less so down south and paler.
Sunshine doesn't seem to stop lots of people dying in Florida, Texas, Iran, India etc etc
There is lots of Zinc in nuts and seeds. Vegetarians are not zinc deficient. Indeed there is reasonable evidence that being vegetarian is significantly life extending, and healthy years too.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Source? A lot of folk in the more northern climes and of more melanated skin yes, but less so down south and paler.
I don't have a source, but it's what various doctors have told me over the years. It doesn't matter what colour skin people have if they spend most of the day indoors.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Are you deficient Gallowgate? In Vitamin D I mean?
Comments
It alleges that easy access to mail in voting is unconstitutional. And therefore seeks to throw out the electoral college votes of four states which Biden won, and which had this form of voting.
But if you're going to throw out those results on the basis on easy mail in voting, you have to also get rid of Florida (super easy), Utah (compulsory), North Carolina (super easy) and a bunch of other states.
Indeed, the group you're left with is New York, Illinois, Texas and a few other North Eastern States who voted Democrat.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1336772218295111689?s=20
And maybe that is one of the points, or at least the silver lining if they don't do the impossible and win the case. They get to present their evidence to SCOTUS, there might be things in there that people question or where it creates doubt.
The Queen may well be devastated if Scotland goes independent on her "watch" but it is none of her business. Her job is to act as a figurehead whilst the PM gets on with the day to day running of the UK.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
There is plenty of detail on Taiwan and New Zealand here.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(20)30044-4/fulltext
Essentially. Preparation. Mask wearing as a culture. Effective border controls. Enforced quarantine. Tracking. Experience of SARS.
(Ivory Gull, if you were wondering.)
Very irritating.
The really rabid anti trumpers wont admit this, but you are right.
I did Brighton To Inverness once, but the return leg was more gentile via the lakes.
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1336777195755360257?s=20
2010: -3,905
2011: -5,237
2012: 4,257
2013: -263
2014: 8,602
2015: 10,218
2016: 12,027
2017: 10,756
2018: 2,638
2019: 7,508
2020: -9,493
Since 2014 the trend has been for deaths to exceed the five year average, presumably due to our aging population. The 2018 figure may be a bit lower as it followed the Beast From The East, which took out quite a lot of people in March of that year.
Anyway, the -9,493 is a pretty substantial number. Perhaps we'd have had a negative number even without COVID, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that it represents the shadow of COVID (i.e. they're already dead).
Anyone know why?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/world/2020/12/08/taiwan-coronavirus-covid-19-fine-8-seconds-migrant-worker-ctw-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn
Similarly the EU vaccine scheme didn't prevent individual nations making their own purchases.
We can only hope.
The distinction is that the mail in rules of Florida, Utah, North Carolina and others were made by the legislatures of those states. The rules of the states being sued were at least partially made by officials and not by legislatures. The constitution explicitly states that election rules must be made by legislatures and not by officials, or indeed courts.
Texas et all are claiming the sued states violated the constitution in framing their election rules. And that therefore those elections are unconstitutional.
Study suggests Covid-19 circulating in Italy in late November 2019
“Long-term, unrecognised spread of SARS-CoV-2 in northern Italy would help explain, at least in part, the devastating impact and rapid course of the first wave of COVID-19 in Lombardy.”
They would merely be ruling the election in four states unconstitutional, and returning the power to choose electors in those four states to their legislatures.
(I think!).
https://twitter.com/FreeQuayBuoy/status/1336769626475257864?s=20
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1336787888470626305?s=20
In terms of writing death certificates, covid can either be listed as the primary cause, or an underlying factor to acute renal failure for example.
It doesn't matter much, in terms of statistics as both are included in the ONS stats, rightly.
For detail on how to complete death certificates see here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-notes-for-completing-a-medical-certificate-of-cause-of-death
Death Certificates are generally completed by the Junior doctor looking after the patient. There is no central instruction in how to complete, other than the above, and certainly no incentive to complete in any particular diagnosis.
Normally we get the pavlovian 'Ulster says NO' response.
Far cry from the 80s.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/09/labour-red-wall-seats-lost-to-conservatives-in-2019-might-be-lost-for-good
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1336778986068832258?s=20
https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2020-08-20/man-fined-10000-for-quarantine-breach-in-guernsey
I felt slightly sorry for a hotel worker who stopped off at the shop outside his accommodation for a bottle of water (£3500) but not the old fool who thought if he drank his pint by himself in the pub that counted as "isolating". A couple of seasonal workers who couldn't pay were sent to prison instead.
https://twitter.com/ikepoker/status/1336789985681281025?s=20
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1336366980098617350?s=20
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
Our thoughts and prayers etc.
They have totally overplayed their hand, they think we will submit, we will not submit, we are Britain, fuck em all. We are superior to them and we have never been Nazis and they are evil.
There is lots of Zinc in nuts and seeds. Vegetarians are not zinc deficient. Indeed there is reasonable evidence that being vegetarian is significantly life extending, and healthy years too.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?