"@HugoGye UK has ordered another 60m doses of Pfizer vaccine to use as part of booster shot programme in the autumn, Matt Hancock says."
It's another very, very good move wrt vaccines as Pfizer are prepping their gen 2 vaccine for delivery in the timeframe the government is talking about. I'm once again impressed by the level of organisation that the government has showed with this. This is the world's best insurance policy in the west against another lockdown. I genuinely don't think any other major country has been this forwards thinking.
Stuff the Government's outstanding performance on vaccines to enable this Country to get back to normallity, lets spend days discussing who paid for wallpaper on a taxpayer owned property.
Blimey! Have you defected from the "It's all a fake, COVID is no worse than the flu" camp?
Some people are so fickle!
Im not in that camp, Im in the masks don't prevent Covid transmission camp (its a small but select group) , they certainly prevent Flu transmission as shown by the fact there has been no flu in the UK for months, but they do not prevent Covid transmission as numerous countries where there is a mask wearing mandate show.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what kind of stark raving loony you are.
So sorry to have got it a bit wrong.
Look at Thailand, everyone wears masks there, how is their Covid situation looking today?
Never mind that - look at Mars! Or Planet Tharg, in the DARK DIMENSION ....
Its sad that I am considered a lunatic ....
Indeed, indeed. But try to get over it.
My son has just undergone 16 sessions of electroconvulsive treatment for PTSD and mental issues
You may think it is clever to call someone a lunatic, but for those of us who have family members suffering mental heath issues it just is not acceptable
That's terrible, Big G, and you have my sincere sympathies
We have schizophrenia in my close family. It is not fun
HOWEVER if we rule out every insult on the ground *someone* might be offended, then the great British tradition of ribald and abusive discourse, which itself prevents actual violence (by venting these feelings in mere words) will be lost
Jaw jaw, rather than war war
So I will continue to accuse people of being crazed walruses, spazz-out specialists, etc
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
Odd because only the other day you were saying how Boris had “beaten covid”. Anyone would think you are just an attention seeker. Probably one of the most hysterical hyperbolic posts on PB, in a very crowded, competitive field.
The combination of the lockdown forever fearties and the attention seeking scientists and doompornmongers mean those of us who just want life to get back to normal are going to have to continue to make noise.
It already seems to have worked re domestic vax passes - all talk of which has died a death, as I predicted, when it dawned on people that they are entirely unnecessary and distinctly unBritish.
Of the 6 pubs and cafes that I've been in this week, only one asked for me to do track and trace. And they didn't ask very hard....
Yes, it’s rather a shame that people on the moderate middle ground of this dynamic feel they have to endlessly pipe up because to do otherwise means they are drowned out by extremist voices. Most of us just want to get our jabs and get on with our lives.
I'm not even that bothered about my jab anymore - I'm perfectly content that we're in a good place. Just want rid of the damn masks and pettifogging rules.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams, and commission the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
I've never seen any reason why BPC-registered pollsters are anything other than neutral.
Any insinuations they're not really ought to have substantial evidence behind it.
I am more cynical than most but this week we have been reminded that the CEO of the post office, her board of directors and a team of lawyers conspired to keep innocent people in prison for years rather than admit an error. Her reward was a job in the cabinet office, a senior role with the church and an honours, all after news of the scandal had been public knowledge for years. I am less trusting of those in charge of our businesses and institutions, I think rightly so.
BREAKING: Arlene Foster says she will step down as DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s First Minister, following calls within the party for a leadership contest. More on @SkyNews now.
Which means that the next leader will be more unionist and Sinn Fein will win the 2022 election.
Not at all, Sinn Fein are only ahead now as the DUP have lost hardliners to Traditional Unionist Voice.
The latest NI Assembly poll has Sinn Fein on 24%, the DUP on 19%, the Alliance on 18% and the SDLP on 13%, the UUP on 12% and Traditional Unionist Voice on 10%.
If you are a moderate Unionist you will already be voting UUP not DUP. If you are a centrist you will be voting Alliance not DUP and if you are a Nationalist you will obviously never vote DUP anyway.
It is hardliners the DUP needs to win back
Are you sure? Have you ever been to Northern Ireland?
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Does (8) include discussion of Trafalgar?
Not if it concerns 1805, I presume.
Or Lady Hamilton. \ Though do recall RCS doing some basic research re: Trafalgar (21st century edition) and did interview the principle on his poop deck.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
Odd because only the other day you were saying how Boris had “beaten covid”. Anyone would think you are just an attention seeker. Probably one of the most hysterical hyperbolic posts on PB, in a very crowded, competitive field.
The combination of the lockdown forever fearties and the attention seeking scientists and doompornmongers mean those of us who just want life to get back to normal are going to have to continue to make noise.
It already seems to have worked re domestic vax passes - all talk of which has died a death, as I predicted, when it dawned on people that they are entirely unnecessary and distinctly unBritish.
Of the 6 pubs and cafes that I've been in this week, only one asked for me to do track and trace. And they didn't ask very hard....
How happy and optimistic did you feel yesterday, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very unoptimistic
When you thought it couldn't get any worse Nestle are moving more jobs out of the UK to EU countries. I've worked for them many times in Germany and Switzerland. A really nice company. Very civilised.
This is a tragedy, indeed.
"Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse" - eg an apocalyptic catastrophe unfolding in south Asia, where many millions might die - it gets even worse, when SOME NESTLE JOBS MOVE FROM THE UK TO THE EU
"@HugoGye UK has ordered another 60m doses of Pfizer vaccine to use as part of booster shot programme in the autumn, Matt Hancock says."
It's another very, very good move wrt vaccines as Pfizer are prepping their gen 2 vaccine for delivery in the timeframe the government is talking about. I'm once again impressed by the level of organisation that the government has showed with this. This is the world's best insurance policy in the west against another lockdown. I genuinely don't think any other major country has been this forwards thinking.
Stuff the Government's outstanding performance on vaccines to enable this Country to get back to normallity, lets spend days discussing who paid for wallpaper on a taxpayer owned property.
Blimey! Have you defected from the "It's all a fake, COVID is no worse than the flu" camp?
Some people are so fickle!
Im not in that camp, Im in the masks don't prevent Covid transmission camp (its a small but select group) , they certainly prevent Flu transmission as shown by the fact there has been no flu in the UK for months, but they do not prevent Covid transmission as numerous countries where there is a mask wearing mandate show.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what kind of stark raving loony you are.
So sorry to have got it a bit wrong.
Look at Thailand, everyone wears masks there, how is their Covid situation looking today?
Never mind that - look at Mars! Or Planet Tharg, in the DARK DIMENSION ....
Its sad that I am considered a lunatic ....
Indeed, indeed. But try to get over it.
My son has just undergone 16 sessions of electroconvulsive treatment for PTSD and mental issues
You may think it is clever to call someone a lunatic, but for those of us who have family members suffering mental heath issues it just is not acceptable
That's terrible, Big G, and you have my sincere sympathies
We have schizophrenia in my close family. It is not fun
HOWEVER if we rule out every insult on the ground *someone* might be offended, then the great British tradition of ribald and abusive discourse, which itself prevents actual violence (by venting these feelings in mere words) will be lost
Jaw jaw, rather than war war
So I will continue to accuse people of being crazed walruses, spazz-out specialists, etc
Indeed.
I am only sensitive to lazy accusations of mental health issues
I have made my point and am not a preacher and this site needs extraordinary views expressed with passion
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
"@HugoGye UK has ordered another 60m doses of Pfizer vaccine to use as part of booster shot programme in the autumn, Matt Hancock says."
It's another very, very good move wrt vaccines as Pfizer are prepping their gen 2 vaccine for delivery in the timeframe the government is talking about. I'm once again impressed by the level of organisation that the government has showed with this. This is the world's best insurance policy in the west against another lockdown. I genuinely don't think any other major country has been this forwards thinking.
Stuff the Government's outstanding performance on vaccines to enable this Country to get back to normallity, lets spend days discussing who paid for wallpaper on a taxpayer owned property.
Blimey! Have you defected from the "It's all a fake, COVID is no worse than the flu" camp?
Some people are so fickle!
Im not in that camp, Im in the masks don't prevent Covid transmission camp (its a small but select group) , they certainly prevent Flu transmission as shown by the fact there has been no flu in the UK for months, but they do not prevent Covid transmission as numerous countries where there is a mask wearing mandate show.
Thanks for clarifying exactly what kind of stark raving loony you are.
So sorry to have got it a bit wrong.
Look at Thailand, everyone wears masks there, how is their Covid situation looking today?
Never mind that - look at Mars! Or Planet Tharg, in the DARK DIMENSION ....
Its sad that I am considered a lunatic ....
Indeed, indeed. But try to get over it.
My son has just undergone 16 sessions of electroconvulsive treatment for PTSD and mental issues
You may think it is clever to call someone a lunatic, but for those of us who have family members suffering mental heath issues it just is not acceptable
That's terrible, Big G, and you have my sincere sympathies
We have schizophrenia in my close family. It is not fun
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Is it too much to hope for that Disney might get it and include it at no extra cost?
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
Odd because only the other day you were saying how Boris had “beaten covid”. Anyone would think you are just an attention seeker. Probably one of the most hysterical hyperbolic posts on PB, in a very crowded, competitive field.
The combination of the lockdown forever fearties and the attention seeking scientists and doompornmongers mean those of us who just want life to get back to normal are going to have to continue to make noise.
It already seems to have worked re domestic vax passes - all talk of which has died a death, as I predicted, when it dawned on people that they are entirely unnecessary and distinctly unBritish.
Of the 6 pubs and cafes that I've been in this week, only one asked for me to do track and trace. And they didn't ask very hard....
How happy and optimistic did you feel yesterday, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very unoptimistic
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Is it too much to hope for that Disney might get it and include it at no extra cost?
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Is it too much to hope for that Disney might get it and include it at no extra cost?
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
ITV may be a dark horse in this race. They are keen to diversify out and taking a minority stake (a) means they do not consolidate the full cost and (b) they may be able to roll it up into Britbox and improve the offering
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
Odd because only the other day you were saying how Boris had “beaten covid”. Anyone would think you are just an attention seeker. Probably one of the most hysterical hyperbolic posts on PB, in a very crowded, competitive field.
The combination of the lockdown forever fearties and the attention seeking scientists and doompornmongers mean those of us who just want life to get back to normal are going to have to continue to make noise.
It already seems to have worked re domestic vax passes - all talk of which has died a death, as I predicted, when it dawned on people that they are entirely unnecessary and distinctly unBritish.
Of the 6 pubs and cafes that I've been in this week, only one asked for me to do track and trace. And they didn't ask very hard....
How happy and optimistic did you feel yesterday, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very unoptimistic
9.
I had a pint outside a pub, and a cigar. Bliss.
But thanks to ongoing impact of COVID, the future is certainly a turn towards more nationalism and authoritarianism. Libertarian people on the moderate middle ground of this dynamic really can’t feel optimistic with what’s certainly coming 😕
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Is it too much to hope for that Disney might get it and include it at no extra cost?
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
Lol no extra cost. It eventually rolls into an ESPN+ option that will cost £10-13 per month.
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
This is a good heart rending twist that the writers of Contagion didn’t think of. So well done, you are worth your reputation. But I don’t think it matters in real life any more. If I’m vaccinated why do I care if my cat can catch it? Ok sure maybe we lose 0.4-0.6% of cats. But that’s not going to make a good movie/novel.
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
This is a good heart rending twist that the writers of Contagion didn’t think of. So well done, you are worth your reputation. But I don’t think it matters in real life any more. If I’m vaccinated why do I care if my cat can catch it? Ok sure maybe we lose 0.4-0.6% of cats. But that’s not going to make a good movie/novel.
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
That's kinda my point. All you need is a slight but genuine *suspicion" of cats and, well, all cats die
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
But they were Hardy what was needed.
Particularly his Temerairety in publishing BS as accurate polls deserves to be called out.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
This is a good heart rending twist that the writers of Contagion didn’t think of. So well done, you are worth your reputation. But I don’t think it matters in real life any more. If I’m vaccinated why do I care if my cat can catch it? Ok sure maybe we lose 0.4-0.6% of cats. But that’s not going to make a good movie/novel.
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
That's kinda my point. All you need is a slight but genuine *suspicion" of cats and, well, all cats die
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
The Imperial trouser dropper was indirectly responsible for that little kid’s pet goat being murdered in foot and mouth wasn’t he. Sicko.
I learnt recently that hedgehog houses require a tunnelled entrance to protect them not from foxes, but house cats. I do like cats all the same.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
But they were Hardy what was needed.
Particularly his Temerairety in publishing BS as accurate polls deserves to be called out.
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
I see someone let the "home working is terrible and reduces economic productivity" dinosaur troll out for a walk earlier.
Rishi and Boris have decided the civil service/tax payer is going to save a lot of money from less office and car park space, and they are currently pushing it through.
Business based on commuters is being thrown under a bus.
Troll? In office productivity, partly from passive training, is more productive than home working. It’s proven isn’t it?
It’s not COVID goes away without any impact. It’s nudged things and accelerated things.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
That is not the same thing as being a pollster though, is it? Anyone can simply make predictions, and they may well end up right, but lacking any kind of methodology based on data there's no reason to assume they can accurately measure something. Pollsters struggle with that too, but are at least trying, not just guessing.
If I called an election exactly right based on my gut I'd have been more acccurate, but people could hardly rely on my assessment in future as I might just be lucky.
Philip Thompson makes the decent point as well that he was looking accurate with Florida, I said so in the middle of the night, but the end result was closer to the more Dem positive predictions.
Off Topic: Just watched the playback of PMQs and I haven't laughed so much in all my life, well for a long while anyway. It was like watching Billy Bunter being taken to task for stealing pies from the Pie shop.
That's kinda my point. All you need is a slight but genuine *suspicion" of cats and, well, all cats die
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
The Death of Cats.
Sounds like the best-seller John Wyndham never wrote.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
This is a good heart rending twist that the writers of Contagion didn’t think of. So well done, you are worth your reputation. But I don’t think it matters in real life any more. If I’m vaccinated why do I care if my cat can catch it? Ok sure maybe we lose 0.4-0.6% of cats. But that’s not going to make a good movie/novel.
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
That's kinda my point. All you need is a slight but genuine *suspicion" of cats and, well, all cats die
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
The Imperial trouser dropper was indirectly responsible for that little kid’s pet goat being murdered in foot and mouth wasn’t he. Sicko.
I learnt recently that hedgehog houses require a tunnelled entrance to protect them not from foxes, but house cats. I do like cats all the same.
I am entirely unsentimental about pets. If every pet cat had to die to save the birds, do it. Let the wild cats live
Dogs just shit everywhere. Kill them as well, unless they are working dogs
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
He had Trump narrowly winning, everyone else had a Biden landslide. The binary outcome might have been right from the main pollsters but it was indeed a lot closer than predicted.
I very nearly stuck a 5 figure sum on Biden pre Trump getting covid before getting cold feet. I would’ve soiled myself in the early hours of election night if I had I reckon.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
But they were Hardy what was needed.
Particularly his Temerairety in publishing BS as accurate polls deserves to be called out.
Yes, no Victory for him.
His admiration for Trump was an Achille heel twice over.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
They are in the pretty much the same situation re cases and deaths as they were hen they went into deeper lockdown. Granted, many more people will now be vaccinated at least once, but it seems odd.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
This is a good heart rending twist that the writers of Contagion didn’t think of. So well done, you are worth your reputation. But I don’t think it matters in real life any more. If I’m vaccinated why do I care if my cat can catch it? Ok sure maybe we lose 0.4-0.6% of cats. But that’s not going to make a good movie/novel.
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
That's kinda my point. All you need is a slight but genuine *suspicion" of cats and, well, all cats die
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
The Imperial trouser dropper was indirectly responsible for that little kid’s pet goat being murdered in foot and mouth wasn’t he. Sicko.
I learnt recently that hedgehog houses require a tunnelled entrance to protect them not from foxes, but house cats. I do like cats all the same.
I am entirely unsentimental about pets. If every pet cat had to die to save the birds, do it. Let the wild cats live
Dogs just shit everywhere. Kill them as well, unless they are working dogs
Stop it! You’ll trigger TSE with his fear of wild animals again.
Telecoms giant in talks with potential partners including Amazon and Disney about offloading a stake in its television arm
BT is in talks with Amazon, Disney and others to offload a stake in its television arm, The Telegraph can reveal, as the pandemic casts doubt over the future of sport.
The telecoms operator has appointed the investment bank Lazard to explore a partial sale of BT Sport as it focuses on upgrading Britain’s broadband network.
It is understood that BT is in talks with potential partners including Amazon, Disney and Dazn, an international sports streaming venture funded by Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the Ukraine-born billionaire.
A British broadcaster is also involved in the discussions and potentially leading the bidding, City sources said.
BT has a longstanding partnership with ITV, although has also worked with Channel 4 and the BBC. Any traditional broadcaster could seek to show more top-flight football on terrestrial television.
The same source said Dazn, which recently agreed a sports broadcasting partnership with BT’s Italian equivalent, was “most keen”.
The discussions pit a traditional broadcaster against Dazn, a streaming upstart, and two global media giants. Potential private equity partners including CVC, a major investor in rugby, and Silverlake, a shareholder in Manchester City are understood to have backed away from talks.
A source said: "The world of sport has been rocked by coronavirus. It's no surprise that BT is rethinking how best to keep growing the business."
Multiple sources said the uncertainties of sports rights auctions and the pandemic made it impossible to say whether a transaction will be agreed. The talks are underway with no strict timetable against a backdrop of turmoil in sports rights as buyers and sellers struggle to predict the appetite for live sport after the pandemic.
BT, under chief executive Philip Jansen, has cut its payout to shareholders to pump billions of pounds into replacing tens of millions of copper telephone wires with faster and more reliable fibre-optic broadband lines.
The Premier League is seeking approval to roll over its current £4.7bn domestic television deal with Sky, BT and Amazon for a further three years, as The Telegraph revealed last weekend.
Is it too much to hope for that Disney might get it and include it at no extra cost?
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
Lol no extra cost. It eventually rolls into an ESPN+ option that will cost £10-13 per month.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
Indeed he called most key states wrongly. A woeful performance as I recall.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
He had Trump narrowly winning, everyone else had a Biden landslide. The binary outcome might have been right from the main pollsters but it was indeed a lot closer than predicted.
I very nearly stuck a 5 figure sum on Biden pre Trump getting covid before getting cold feet. I would’ve soiled myself in the early hours of election night if I had I reckon.
I did feel a bit sick when Dade reported as I had a couple of grand to lose on Trump at that point.
They are in the pretty much the same situation re cases and deaths as they were hen they went into deeper lockdown. Granted, many more people will now be vaccinated at least once, but it seems odd.
This is the truly scary bit about the French re-opening
"France’s rolling seven-day average of new infections has dipped below 28,000 for the first time in more than a month, but hospitals this week exceeded 6,000 Covid-19 intensive care patents for the first time since during the first wave in April 2020."
They're at an ICU peak, but Macron is re-opening?
It is a mahoosive gamble. I am tempted to say it is a mahoohoohoohoohoosive gamble, but you probably get my meaning, already
I pray the EU governments get this right, if they fuck it up it will cross the Channel and bite us in the arse
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Get a room
Er. with whom?
On your own would be best. You have clearly been drinking. Again.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
I imagine plenty of gardeners would also not mourn the passing of all of the cats Given their habit of defecating where they feel like. At least dog owners, generally, clear their dogs shit away. Cat owners are not responsible for their cats muck.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Yet his strategy of taking the polling average and applying a 5 point Trump swing actually resulted in a good "final score".
I do think he did some actual piss poor polling to go along with his made up stuff.
You could tell the difference as his real stuff had ludicrous demographics like 18-24 years olds voting for Trump over Biden by a 2 to 1 margin etc.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Get a room
Er. with whom?
On your own would be best. You have clearly been drinking. Again.
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
Perhaps the truly stunning women don't want him. He can only get the needy mediocrities who are flattered by his attention.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
He had Trump narrowly winning, everyone else had a Biden landslide. The binary outcome might have been right from the main pollsters but it was indeed a lot closer than predicted.
I very nearly stuck a 5 figure sum on Biden pre Trump getting covid before getting cold feet. I would’ve soiled myself in the early hours of election night if I had I reckon.
It wasn't really that much closer. Biden got a little bit more than his share polled, with Trump more too. Besides Florida, Trafalgar were worse on pretty much any State polling than most alternatives.
The notion that Trafalgar were anything other than a miss just came from the fact Florida were first to report.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
Odd because only the other day you were saying how Boris had “beaten covid”. Anyone would think you are just an attention seeker. Probably one of the most hysterical hyperbolic posts on PB, in a very crowded, competitive field.
The combination of the lockdown forever fearties and the attention seeking scientists and doompornmongers mean those of us who just want life to get back to normal are going to have to continue to make noise.
It already seems to have worked re domestic vax passes - all talk of which has died a death, as I predicted, when it dawned on people that they are entirely unnecessary and distinctly unBritish.
Of the 6 pubs and cafes that I've been in this week, only one asked for me to do track and trace. And they didn't ask very hard....
How happy and optimistic did you feel yesterday, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is very unoptimistic
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
Why not just immunise pets? No need for a massacre.
Today I saw an old widower who was moving house because his dog could no longer manage the stairs. He said the pooch was his only reason to live.
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
Of adults ? Perhaps. Of population ? It'd be a miracle.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
Why not just immunise pets? No need for a massacre.
Today I saw an old widower who was moving house because his dog could no longer manage the stairs. He said the pooch was his only reason to live.
Because that doesn't get the attention seeking doommongers more attention, obviously?
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Get a room
Er. with whom?
Gealbhan!
Fine.
I’ll bring a couple of birds if you supply the sunshine Leon.
I’ve been meaning to run the opening of chapter 7 of you know what passed you for opinion anyway.
clip-clop of hooves rattle of carriage, rhythmic sounds upon cobbles and down uneven lanes. The drove of people and livestock with its filthy hum had given way to stiller, greener landscape, with less distracting odour. Puddles in and by the way revealed pours of the previous day; now and again, while owners wrought affairs, a hungry horse rested, the blessed dressed in nosebag or trough. The day passed by with winks of the eye; it was late afternoon of 28th of February, when the carriage came to Greenfields. A crescent moon all but set, shadows lengthen into the impenetrable vegetation, on cusp of this evening a scornful north breeze has arisen; all while growing from fresh verdure, a stern fascia, rising upward, challenging sky with rich Gothic gravitas - a defiance to the ashen liberal and rich-blue republican of heaven. The steed is affection for carrying you step by laborious reason, reigns still now on drive, business done. Perched upon arch with welcome trill, sparrow sings greeting, a picture of happiness in this domicile - if indeed her meaning...
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
Perhaps the truly stunning women don't want him. He can only get the needy mediocrities who are flattered by his attention.
No, I disagree.
I am sure he could secure a truly stunning woman, but his mind does not work that way. His sex drive - I suspect - works more like hunger during a famine. You don't want Michelin starred food, you just want FOOD, and lots of it. Lots of different women!
The easiest way to do this is to have almost no criteria whatsoever and just fuck everything that seems female and demonstrably under 40, and also alive. If you hit if off with one, more the better, but that's not the aim. This explains why he moves on so quick, yet relentlessly. The famished hunger returns
"@RymMomtaz Macron also had a bit of a pop at UK vaccine strategy: "you have countries whose vaccine strategy is to only administer 1 jab, I’m not sure that it’s very serious...we are lying to people when we tell them they’ve been vaccinated by getting one injection of a vaccine that consists of two""
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Get a room
Er. with whom?
Gealbhan!
Fine.
I’ll bring a couple of birds if you supply the sunshine Leon.
I’ve been meaning to run the opening of chapter 7 of you know what passed you for opinion anyway.
clip-clop of hooves rattle of carriage, rhythmic sounds upon cobbles and down uneven lanes. The drove of people and livestock with its filthy hum had given way to stiller, greener landscape, with less distracting odour. Puddles in and by the way revealed pours of the previous day; now and again, while owners wrought affairs, a hungry horse rested, the blessed dressed in nosebag or trough. The day passed by with winks of the eye; it was late afternoon of 28th of February, when the carriage came to Greenfields. A crescent moon all but set, shadows lengthen into the impenetrable vegetation, on cusp of this evening a scornful north breeze has arisen; all while growing from fresh verdure, a stern fascia, rising upward, challenging sky with rich Gothic gravitas - a defiance to the ashen liberal and rich-blue republican of heaven. The steed is affection for carrying you step by laborious reason, reigns still now on drive, business done. Perched upon arch with welcome trill, sparrow sings greeting, a picture of happiness in this domicile - if indeed her meaning...
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Our cats social distance, the only vector they'd catch it off is us.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Feline Toxoplasmosis has been implicated in many human historical events, eg the Witch Craze in 16th-17th century Europe
"@RymMomtaz Macron also had a bit of a pop at UK vaccine strategy: "you have countries whose vaccine strategy is to only administer 1 jab, I’m not sure that it’s very serious...we are lying to people when we tell them they’ve been vaccinated by getting one injection of a vaccine that consists of two""
I take it he doesn't keep up with the scientific literature on the matter then.
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
Of adults ? Perhaps. Of population ? It'd be a miracle.
Oddly enough, I think the US would find it easier to hit 75% of total population (once we have a vaccine approved for all age groups except babies) than it will be to get to 75% of adults. The US is used to kids needing to be vaccinated to have access to public schools.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Feline Toxoplasmosis has been implicated in many human historical events, eg the Witch Craze in 16th-17th century Europe
Although ergot from damp wheat has also been suggested.
European Union lawyers today demanded AstraZeneca immediately deliver Covid-19 vaccines from its factories in Britain, in a move that risks reigniting tensions with Downing Street over scarce vaccine supplies in the bloc.
Do you think vaccine nationalism is getting worse not better? What would you say personally to an Indian, in the depth of this crisis over there, who asks why Indian factories have been vaccinating Britain not India?
I would quite happily look someone from India in the eye and justify that. What is unjustifiable is *not* to vaccinate people with the available doses but still to demand them so nobody else can benefit.
"@RymMomtaz Macron also had a bit of a pop at UK vaccine strategy: "you have countries whose vaccine strategy is to only administer 1 jab, I’m not sure that it’s very serious...we are lying to people when we tell them they’ve been vaccinated by getting one injection of a vaccine that consists of two""
I take it he doesn't keep up with the scientific literature on the matter then.
Macron? He's one of the world's leading self-taught epidemiologists, n'est-ce pas?
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Feline Toxoplasmosis has been implicated in many human historical events, eg the Witch Craze in 16th-17th century Europe
Although ergot from damp wheat has also been suggested.
The Feline T explanation is more persuasive, to me. Old women with lots of cats
And it really does do weird things
"How a cat parasite can change your personality
"A new study suggests that infection with the cat-borne parasite Toxoplasma gondii could make people more risk-prone and likely to start their own business."
When you thought it couldn't get any worse Nestle are moving more jobs out of the UK to EU countries. I've worked for them many times in Germany and Switzerland. A really nice company. Very civilised.
So civilised that they convinced much of the developing world that their tins of sweetened milk were better for their babies' health than their mothers' own breast milk. Which lead to huge amounts of sick (and presumably dead) babies.
I'm just looking for an authoritative ruling about what I'm allowed to say here.
As a general rule here's the best guidelines for posting on PB.
1) Don't be rude to Mike and Robert, they spend a lot of time and money ensuring we can all comment for free. It is ok to disagree with Mike but don't be rude about it.
2) Mike's also very protective about his regular thread writers, so again it is fine to disagree with them but don't go all abusive towards them.
3) Avoid serious bad language (the c word is a no no) especially towards other posters.
4) Don't post anything that might that might get Mike into trouble/cost him a lot of money.
5) Don't copy and paste whole tracts of articles behind paywalls, the most serious legal letters Mike has ever received is from The Times complaining about several of their articles being posted in full/nearly full on PB
6) Don't diss Radiohead.
7) Don't complain about politicalbetting.com focussing on betting on politics.
8) Don't impugn the integrity of pollsters. It is ok to critique the methodology but don't say X pollster is only producing those figures because Y commissioned the poll/full of Z party's donors.
Edit - This is not an exhaustive list but you get the general gist.
Why 8? It is clearly true, especially in US politics, why should we pretend it does not happen? Pollsters are commercial organisations with business interests and operate in a partisan media world, of course some of them are sometimes partisan?
I'm guessing he means domestic BPC-registered pollsters and not US ones, or non-BPC ones?
Its clearly worse in the US but no reason why it wont happen here to some extent. The newspapers clearly have their teams or parties they support, and commission many of the polls.
An investor in the stock market does not assume all auditors are completely impartial, but understands they have a commercial relationship with the firms they audit.
A political bettor should not assume pollsters are completely neutral.
OR that (in some cases) they are really "pollsters" at all.
Who was that bloke with the dickie bow in the US election who essentially just made his polls up? I remember his having one or two advocates on here until he was finally discredited as a complete charlatan!
Trafalgar. His polls were all made up
Personally think they were recycled robo-call responses, somewhat massaged based on cookie-cutter demographics.
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
I think he just used other people's polls and added a bit to the GOP.
More accurate than the other people then wasn’t he
Not especially, no.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
He had Trump narrowly winning, everyone else had a Biden landslide. The binary outcome might have been right from the main pollsters but it was indeed a lot closer than predicted.
I very nearly stuck a 5 figure sum on Biden pre Trump getting covid before getting cold feet. I would’ve soiled myself in the early hours of election night if I had I reckon.
It wasn't really that much closer. Biden got a little bit more than his share polled, with Trump more too. Besides Florida, Trafalgar were worse on pretty much any State polling than most alternatives.
The notion that Trafalgar were anything other than a miss just came from the fact Florida were first to report.
From James Carville (the rest of the article is a read too):
"We won the White House against a world-historical buffoon. And we came within 42,000 votes of losing. We lost congressional seats. We didn’t pick up state legislatures. So let’s not have an argument about whether or not we’re off-key in our messaging. We are. And we’re off because there’s too much jargon and there’s too much esoterica and it turns people off."
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Feline Toxoplasmosis has been implicated in many human historical events, eg the Witch Craze in 16th-17th century Europe
Although ergot from damp wheat has also been suggested.
The Feline T explanation is more persuasive, to me. Old women with lots of cats
And it really does do weird things
"How a cat parasite can change your personality
"A new study suggests that infection with the cat-borne parasite Toxoplasma gondii could make people more risk-prone and likely to start their own business."
It really is interesting how behaviour can be modified by outside (ok inside) influences. Not unlike how drugs can affect consciousness. Always makes me think.
European Union lawyers today demanded AstraZeneca immediately deliver Covid-19 vaccines from its factories in Britain, in a move that risks reigniting tensions with Downing Street over scarce vaccine supplies in the bloc.
Do you think vaccine nationalism is getting worse not better? What would you say personally to an Indian, in the depth of this crisis over there, who asks why Indian factories have been vaccinating Britain not India?
I would quite happily look someone from India in the eye and justify that. What is unjustifiable is *not* to vaccinate people with the available doses but still to demand them so nobody else can benefit.
I could not justify Indian factories exporting vaccines to Britain, and that was the question asked
No way. They are teetering on the abyss.
Yes I can justify Britain importing all the vaccines bought and secured from equally wealthy western nations, especially the jabs we paid to develop (which they have smeared). But India? No
As I understand it, we have not received any vaccines from India for several months, and that is obviously right
What a difference a couple of decades makes. Here he has the look of a trendy young fogey of the time, about to make his entrance onto Have I Got News For You just after the Angus Deayton era.
A friend of mine made the excellent point, the other day, that for a supposed womaniser, Boris does not aim very high. In terms of women
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
Perhaps the truly stunning women don't want him. He can only get the needy mediocrities who are flattered by his attention.
No, I disagree.
I am sure he could secure a truly stunning woman, but his mind does not work that way. His sex drive - I suspect - works more like hunger during a famine. You don't want Michelin starred food, you just want FOOD, and lots of it. Lots of different women!
The easiest way to do this is to have almost no criteria whatsoever and just fuck everything that seems female and demonstrably under 40, and also alive. If you hit if off with one, more the better, but that's not the aim. This explains why he moves on so quick, yet relentlessly. The famished hunger returns
I have a couple of friends who are eerily similar
Also, I'm not sure he'd cope well with being turned down; so much safer to just play below his league, so to speak.
BoJo does give the impression of needing the adulation in the here and now- hence the dumb promises that keep getting him into trouble. But also the sixth sense of what will make X like him that makes him such a formidable electoral machine.
But I can't see him weathering sustained unpopularity or criticism well. Obviously he avoids it as much as he can, but he can't evade it completely. And that's why I suspect that the chances of him jacking it all in after one too many PMQs like today are higher than they would be for any other occupant of Number 10.
Roll out the footy analogies... 'We are 6-0 up, in the last minute of the game, but sides have lost from here before...'
LOL
I'd like to think our journalists would ask about lifting restrictions early, but I suspect they will be wittering on about holidays again, and with a subsidary about decorating... I firmly believe we have enough evidence in terms of cases (not rising), population antibodies (thanks ONS), evidence of real world vaccine effects (both within patient, and in preventing/reducing transmission) to be less cautious, but I'd be amazed if any of the lobby ask about it.
It is very odd how the May 17 date is now seemingly set in stone. What the government could offer – through its own rules – is a raft of so-called test events with full crowds – e.g. Royal Ascot and the England vs Scotland Euro 2021 match at Wembley. Those dates are so close to the end date of June 21 (just a few days before it) that imposing restrictions on them seems farcical.
It’s still only small percentages allowed in arenas after the 17th, not full houses?
When they talk about fans in grounds, I hadn’t realised for Leicester semi you could only go if you lived in Brent. The fans looked more bemused than excited.
That's the point I'm making. The events I cite are a few days before 21 June – they should be allowed full crowds.
Do you think there will be full crowds everywhere after 21 June? It’s not mandatory is it, venues have right to restrict and distance.
No it's not mandatory. If Ascot want to run a half crowd then up to them, ditto Wembley, pandemic or no pandemic, that's their right. But given those events I cite are literally a few days before 21 June then mandating the restrictions is farcical.
To put that in clear terms: England play Scotland on Friday 18 June. That's the biggest football match on these shores for years. The restrictions are due to be lifted the following Monday. Under the current plans, Wembley would be limited to 10,000 fans – not even enough to meet Scotland's away allocation, never mind England's. If the game were staged just 60 hours later, they could sell out all 90,000 tickets.
Royal Ascot is the same week 15-19 June.
What exactly is your point? I find it hard to infer from your posts at times.
My point being that your point is a good one. 60 hours later could be potential sell out. So why not special dispensation for the full house?
Well, the date may have been fabricated on basis it is sixty hours this side in the first place. My point being, if it was sixty hours or more later, they wouldn’t have tried to sell anything near the full house. The government and scientists wouldn’t’ the have been comfortable with that, nor Wembley stadium.
After June 21st it’s not normal, it’s new normal.
Eh? What does this mean? There are games in the tournament after 21 June, that will not be subject to restrictions. Why should England vs Scotland be? What is "new normal"?
You didn’t anticipate the new normal? Quite embarrassing really. I’ll be laughing at you lot through my new mask. 😁
I do hope you’ve booked, or you ain’t getting in 😆
What on Earth are you talking about? I find your posts to be little more than insidious drivel to be honest.
Rather than this endless drumbeat of fear that you luxuriate in, could you let us know your views on releasing all legal restrictions on 21 June?
Alison Pearson on the front of the Tely today declaring she won’t be wearing a mask this summer.
But Only a fascist will make a comment at someone choosing to wear one?
At least two years of new normal.
In what sense new normal? Can you outline your thinking rather than using buzzwords?
This summer. Mask wearing. Half filled stadiums and venues. You can even see scuffles and fights between masks wearers and mask haters.
Autumn/winter. Lockdowns and restrictions. Third UK wave may even hit earlier than that, I think July.
Further afield, tons more home working as norm, killing a whole business subset reliant on commuters, and economic productivity will decrease because of home working leaving us in debt much longer than expected. And there will be schooling from home as well, for those who thought it would remain childcare whilst they are home working in peace. If you don’t have to use office for everything, they don’t think have to use classroom either for project work.
In long run I also suspect greater inequality, especially in digital divide that will widen at pace, between parts of world and within countries. Inequality becoming racial. rising authoritarianism and nationalism (home shoring, stockpiling, which itself bring extra expense). and even more rampant misinformation and conspiracy on social media.
And not even ruling out muskrat flu (dubbed Trump Flu by Chinese in Trumps second term) cow chest, and dormouse sickness - should COVID be one off pandemic and not start of a trend as old lifestyles meet 21st century globalvillage and pollution?
Can’t even rule out bringing something back from space.
Until eventually all this new normality melds into great plague during the great storm.
Does that answer you question now?
I wish I could ignore this as idiotic scare-mongering.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Problem is the Brits are hopelessly sentimental about pet animals. Farcical how much money is wasted on pet charities (donkeys etc) which could usefully be invested in conservation. I know someone who wants half her estate to go to Cat's Protection. Maddening.
While there are zoonotic respiratory diseases, I don't know of any where there is large-scale animal to human transmission in comparison to human-human transmission. And I am not sure that there is evidence that, because a virus can go one way (human to cat) it can necessarily go the other way (cat to human).
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are: 1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya) 2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or 3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or 4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
Feline Toxoplasmosis has been implicated in many human historical events, eg the Witch Craze in 16th-17th century Europe
Hardly reaches the level of globe-changing pandemic, though.
BTW, there's also a virus that makes mice bigger risk takers, and it's spread by cats. Would that be the same?
When you thought it couldn't get any worse Nestle are moving more jobs out of the UK to EU countries. I've worked for them many times in Germany and Switzerland. A really nice company. Very civilised.
So civilised that they convinced much of the developing world that their tins of sweetened milk were better for their babies' health than their mothers' own breast milk. Which lead to huge amounts of sick (and presumably dead) babies.
In Yemen, when I was there, infant mortality rates were about 14%. Most of that was down to Nestle. Lovely company.
Comments
We have schizophrenia in my close family. It is not fun
HOWEVER if we rule out every insult on the ground *someone* might be offended, then the great British tradition of ribald and abusive discourse, which itself prevents actual violence (by venting these feelings in mere words) will be lost
Jaw jaw, rather than war war
So I will continue to accuse people of being crazed walruses, spazz-out specialists, etc
\
Though do recall RCS doing some basic research re: Trafalgar (21st century edition) and did interview the principle on his poop deck.
"Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse" - eg an apocalyptic catastrophe unfolding in south Asia, where many millions might die - it gets even worse, when SOME NESTLE JOBS MOVE FROM THE UK TO THE EU
I am only sensitive to lazy accusations of mental health issues
I have made my point and am not a preacher and this site needs extraordinary views expressed with passion
But a small taster from behind the paywall is fine.
I can't stand BT Sport, its too much to expect to pay for Sky Sports and then be charged another sport package for the random Saturday 12:30pm kick offs.
I had a pint outside a pub, and a cigar. Bliss.
I cannot. Much of it could come true
Just one example: if it is proved Covid19 can infect animals, and they can infect us right back
At the very beginning of the plague I posited this as one potential nightmare: everyone in the West having to destroy all their pets. It is far from impossible
On the brightside, the death of all pet cats would save a lot of songbirds, and the death of all pet dogs would save a lot of much needed protein for humans, and probably rebalance the global ecosystem. So maybe it is a win, in the end
Qatar vs UAE isn't it?
So not exactly made up, but NOT scientific polling either.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/number-10-confirms-boris-johnson-will-decide-if-he-broke-ministerial-rules-over-downing-street-flat-refurb
Jennifer Arcuri? Not exactly a great beauty. Boxum, probably fun, but beautiful? No. Ditto Carrie and many others. Yes they are youthful compared to him, but he is a rich, charismatic, highly powerful alpha male with a genuine wit, he could pull these women any day
Conclusion? He's a quantity not quality guy. Obsessed with the numbers and the opportunity. I know the type. Clinton is another, I suspect
To be fair, few highly-sexed men combine quantity WITH quality. JFK possibly. Mick Jagger? Weinstein maybe, but his methods are, I feel, questionable. But that may be my puritan soul emerging
On the other hand, what if house cats are the source of covid-22, rather than Chinese lab pangolins? Then this nightmare could come true. Shades of foot and mouth.
I see someone let the "home working is terrible and reduces economic productivity" dinosaur troll out for a walk earlier.
See how many countries reacted to a 1 in 100,000 chance of bloodclots from AZ. Madness. And yet, with plague, madness rules
If pets are implicated they will be killed. And there is, to my mind, a greater chance that pets are a Covid vector- compared to the provably tiny chances that AZ will kill you with a stroke
Particularly his Temerairety in publishing BS as accurate polls deserves to be called out.
Florida yes and then people acted like it was accurate, but by the time the full results came in elsewhere, no he wasn't.
I learnt recently that hedgehog houses require a tunnelled entrance to protect them not from foxes, but house cats. I do like cats all the same.
Business based on commuters is being thrown under a bus.
Troll? In office productivity, partly from passive training, is more productive than home working. It’s proven isn’t it?
It’s not COVID goes away without any impact. It’s nudged things and accelerated things.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210428-french-president-macron-to-update-france-on-covid-19-situation-friday
If I called an election exactly right based on my gut I'd have been more acccurate, but people could hardly rely on my assessment in future as I might just be lucky.
Philip Thompson makes the decent point as well that he was looking accurate with Florida, I said so in the middle of the night, but the end result was closer to the more Dem positive predictions.
Sounds like the best-seller John Wyndham never wrote.
Dogs just shit everywhere. Kill them as well, unless they are working dogs
I very nearly stuck a 5 figure sum on Biden pre Trump getting covid before getting cold feet. I would’ve soiled myself in the early hours of election night if I had I reckon.
Good night.
"France’s rolling seven-day average of new infections has dipped below 28,000 for the first time in more than a month, but hospitals this week exceeded 6,000 Covid-19 intensive care patents for the first time since during the first wave in April 2020."
They're at an ICU peak, but Macron is re-opening?
It is a mahoosive gamble. I am tempted to say it is a mahoohoohoohoohoosive gamble, but you probably get my meaning, already
I pray the EU governments get this right, if they fuck it up it will cross the Channel and bite us in the arse
I do think he did some actual piss poor polling to go along with his made up stuff.
You could tell the difference as his real stuff had ludicrous demographics like 18-24 years olds voting for Trump over Biden by a 2 to 1 margin etc.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1387489687414132740
Governor Cuomo's aides spent months hiding the true pandemic death toll in nursing homes, according to the New York Times
The notion that Trafalgar were anything other than a miss just came from the fact Florida were first to report.
Today I saw an old widower who was moving house because his dog could no longer manage the stairs. He said the pooch was his only reason to live.
Of population ? It'd be a miracle.
I’ll bring a couple of birds if you supply the sunshine Leon.
I’ve been meaning to run the opening of chapter 7 of you know what passed you for opinion anyway.
clip-clop of hooves rattle of carriage, rhythmic sounds upon cobbles and down uneven lanes. The drove of people and livestock with its filthy hum had given way to stiller, greener landscape, with less distracting odour. Puddles in and by the way revealed pours of the previous day; now and again, while owners wrought affairs, a hungry horse rested, the blessed dressed in nosebag or trough. The day passed by with winks of the eye; it was late afternoon of 28th of February, when the carriage came to Greenfields. A crescent moon all but set, shadows lengthen into the impenetrable vegetation, on cusp of this evening a scornful north breeze has arisen; all while growing from fresh verdure, a stern fascia, rising upward, challenging sky with rich Gothic gravitas - a defiance to the ashen liberal and rich-blue republican of heaven. The steed is affection for carrying you step by laborious reason, reigns still now on drive, business done. Perched upon arch with welcome trill, sparrow sings greeting, a picture of happiness in this domicile - if indeed her meaning...
I am sure he could secure a truly stunning woman, but his mind does not work that way. His sex drive - I suspect - works more like hunger during a famine. You don't want Michelin starred food, you just want FOOD, and lots of it. Lots of different women!
The easiest way to do this is to have almost no criteria whatsoever and just fuck everything that seems female and demonstrably under 40, and also alive. If you hit if off with one, more the better, but that's not the aim. This explains why he moves on so quick, yet relentlessly. The famished hunger returns
I have a couple of friends who are eerily similar
https://twitter.com/RymMomtaz/status/1355184918238785540
"@RymMomtaz
Macron also had a bit of a pop at UK vaccine strategy: "you have countries whose vaccine strategy is to only administer 1 jab, I’m not sure that it’s very serious...we are lying to people when we tell them they’ve been vaccinated by getting one injection of a vaccine that consists of two""
The diseases where animal reservoirs do tend to be problematic for human outbreaks are those that are:
1. vector-mediated (ticks, mosquitoes, e.g. Zika, malaria, CCHF, Lyme, sleeping sickness, yellow fever, Chikungunya)
2. where there is close contact between animal and human on a regular basis (e.g. cat scratch fever, anthrax. CCHF) or
3. because of processing of meat from contaminated animals (e.g.CCHF, Ebola) or
4. where larvae/eggs are water/food-borne (e.g. various nasty worms).
And it really does do weird things
"How a cat parasite can change your personality
"A new study suggests that infection with the cat-borne parasite Toxoplasma gondii could make people more risk-prone and likely to start their own business."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322594
"We won the White House against a world-historical buffoon. And we came within 42,000 votes of losing. We lost congressional seats. We didn’t pick up state legislatures. So let’s not have an argument about whether or not we’re off-key in our messaging. We are. And we’re off because there’s too much jargon and there’s too much esoterica and it turns people off."
Few pollsters covered themselves in glory.
https://www.vox.com/22338417/james-carville-democratic-party-biden-100-days
Am very worried about the well-being of this adorable mutt. Why? Because he knows too much!
No way. They are teetering on the abyss.
Yes I can justify Britain importing all the vaccines bought and secured from equally wealthy western nations, especially the jabs we paid to develop (which they have smeared). But India? No
As I understand it, we have not received any vaccines from India for several months, and that is obviously right
BoJo does give the impression of needing the adulation in the here and now- hence the dumb promises that keep getting him into trouble. But also the sixth sense of what will make X like him that makes him such a formidable electoral machine.
But I can't see him weathering sustained unpopularity or criticism well. Obviously he avoids it as much as he can, but he can't evade it completely. And that's why I suspect that the chances of him jacking it all in after one too many PMQs like today are higher than they would be for any other occupant of Number 10.
BTW, there's also a virus that makes mice bigger risk takers, and it's spread by cats. Would that be the same?