If they want to go for a trade war with that, presumably they'll drop their bans on hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken etc which have no scientific basis? Or maybe not.
It's actually possible that they'll get there first. The European Parliament has passed a ban on foie gras as part of a larger package of welfare measures recommended by the Commission (the central one is ending cages for laying hens and sows, in response to our Citizens' Initiative (in my day job) with 1.4 million signatures. It has to be in the final package presented by 2023 and then pass by qualified majority vote (i.e. France can't block it). I suspect we'll get there before them, but we're happy to have a race!
Completely mad.
I would bet that the Foie Gras ban doesn't make it into the final package...
I would be flabbergasted if the French get QMV'd into banning it. Even though I believe from memory we were QMV'd into the completely unscientific hormone treated beef ban.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
The exemption process for covid isolation for key industries seems a total f*cking clusterf*ck.
What goes on in the heads of the people designing this stuff?
Indeed. Would my diabetic patients really be happy with me treating them while my wife had covid, on the basis of daily LFT?
Or the HCAs in a nursing home carrying on personal care while their children had Delta?
Perhaps. If you're fully vaccinated and have a negative LFT then I'm sure your patients would rather be treated by you, than not be treated at all.
And that's going to be the rules from next month, isn't it?
It would be interesting to ask the patients if they minded, or whether they should see a colleague or rebook, when they check in at reception.
It’s an interesting one. If you were treating me in my current state of health I’d be fine with you getting a lateral flow negative before work. When neutropenic after chemotherapy perhaps a bit less keen...
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
I am fully vaccinated and support and encourage anybody who can go get vaccinated.
I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.
I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.
I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.
I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.
saying lots more people die from the virus than the vaccine wont work with young people who are at little risk of dying from covid
Not zero though. We have several on ventilators or ECMO under 30 years old. Half will make it through.
How many were vaccinated (if its allowable for you to give info) ?
And among those not vaccinated what's their reaction to vaccination now ?
This I found interesting:
“One of the last things they do before they’re intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I’m sorry, but it’s too late,” she added, referring to patients who have to be put on a ventilator.
Wasn't very impressed with that doctor's bedside manner. Also seemed to be basically saying that "ventilator = death". I mean, it's not great, but it's not guaranteed death within a week either.
Why?
Why what?
Why not impressed with bedside manner, or why not guaranteed death?
I assume the former? Is the last thing you tell a patient before they are intubed that they have no hope and are going to die?
No, she is telling them it is too late to be vaccinated, which is an obvious truth. She wouldn't be incubating if there was no hope. In our unit about 60% of patients needing intubation survive.
The full quote:
‘One of the last things they do before they’re intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I’m sorry, but it’s too late.
‘A few days later when I call time of death, I hug their family members and I tell them the best way to honor their loved one is to go get vaccinated and encourage everyone they know to do the same. They cry.
Maybe in reality she's not quite so blunt, or offers other reassurance.
I can't see any undue bluntness there, nor any scope for offering reassurance.
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
As he's young and male, maybe you sould point out the risks of erectile dysfunction from long covid.
I have no idea if that has been scientifically proven but then he seems not to be bothered by proof so it may be worth a try.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
- “… one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.”
The exemption process for covid isolation for key industries seems a total f*cking clusterf*ck.
What goes on in the heads of the people designing this stuff?
Indeed. Would my diabetic patients really be happy with me treating them while my wife had covid, on the basis of daily LFT?
Or the HCAs in a nursing home carrying on personal care while their children had Delta?
Perhaps. If you're fully vaccinated and have a negative LFT then I'm sure your patients would rather be treated by you, than not be treated at all.
And that's going to be the rules from next month, isn't it?
It would be interesting to ask the patients if they minded, or whether they should see a colleague or rebook, when they check in at reception.
It’s an interesting one. If you were treating me in my current state of health I’d be fine with you getting a lateral flow negative before work. When neutropenic after chemotherapy perhaps a bit less keen...
The thing is though, there is another issue that is rarely addressed. With Covid as widespread in the population as it is at the moment, and with the number of people who aren't necessarily using the app, and with the factor of asymptomatic spread to take into account, how much does being pinged, but being vaccinated and with a negative LFT, actually increase the risk to your patients.
There is an assumption in there that it is significantly heightened compared to going to work without having been pinged. Do hospital staff have to take an LFT every day at the moment?
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
Everyone seems very cautious here in North Dorset, just about everyone wearing masks in shops and 50% wearing masks in the street.
Really? Down in South Dorset its at max 50% in shops.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to be cricket, it demeans the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any more.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
Well, yes, but his mother won't be too happy if it is. I'm not fussed about winning the argument, I just want to ensure two jabs get into his arms.
If they want to go for a trade war with that, presumably they'll drop their bans on hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken etc which have no scientific basis? Or maybe not.
It's actually possible that they'll get there first. The European Parliament has passed a ban on foie gras as part of a larger package of welfare measures recommended by the Commission (the central one is ending cages for laying hens and sows, in response to our Citizens' Initiative (in my day job) with 1.4 million signatures. It has to be in the final package presented by 2023 and then pass by qualified majority vote (i.e. France can't block it). I suspect we'll get there before them, but we're happy to have a race!
Completely mad. And good luck trying to deny the Gascons and Perigourdines their foie gras. It would be like trying to ban bacon in England.
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll have a word with my MEP about banning English bacon imports.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
Do they actually mean Bell's palsy and not Parkinson's? The former causes facial muscle issues. I've seen in passing stuff on internet saying vaccine and covid itself might trigger this (temporarily!!) but I didn't take in the details or whether it was something from a proper source.
Palsy can be confused with PD.
Also, as far as I am aware, a person has Parkinson's for a while before the symptoms are noticeable. So to get it three weeks after a jab is just nuts frankly.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
If they want to go for a trade war with that, presumably they'll drop their bans on hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken etc which have no scientific basis? Or maybe not.
It's actually possible that they'll get there first. The European Parliament has passed a ban on foie gras as part of a larger package of welfare measures recommended by the Commission (the central one is ending cages for laying hens and sows, in response to our Citizens' Initiative (in my day job) with 1.4 million signatures. It has to be in the final package presented by 2023 and then pass by qualified majority vote (i.e. France can't block it). I suspect we'll get there before them, but we're happy to have a race!
Completely mad. And good luck trying to deny the Gascons and Perigourdines their foie gras. It would be like trying to ban bacon in England.
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll have a word with my MEP about banning English bacon imports.
I presume you mean exports, but it would certainly be a great service to the UK if we were spared Danish 'bacon'.
If they want to go for a trade war with that, presumably they'll drop their bans on hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken etc which have no scientific basis? Or maybe not.
It's actually possible that they'll get there first. The European Parliament has passed a ban on foie gras as part of a larger package of welfare measures recommended by the Commission (the central one is ending cages for laying hens and sows, in response to our Citizens' Initiative (in my day job) with 1.4 million signatures. It has to be in the final package presented by 2023 and then pass by qualified majority vote (i.e. France can't block it). I suspect we'll get there before them, but we're happy to have a race!
Keep up the good work Nick! CWF is one of my charities.
Incidentally, as a writer on these things, I wonder what your thoughts are on the colonialist politics of boardgames? Interesting article from the Atlantic.
I'd not read that article, but he's sort of right. Loads of games adopt colonial or miltarist themes without thinking twice - there's a popular game by Sid Meier, a very respected designer, in which characters who you've defeated are shown in a closing scene where they're being tortured. Many board games are simply abstract in design, with a fairly random theme on top, as the article says. He's right that most designers don't seem to think much about whether the theme they're choosing is in good taste.
I don't think many designers are ideological, and those that are intent on a message cover the usual range from left to right (e.g. People's Wargames is by an American communist, with games about the Bay of Pigs and the Great Patriotic War). Some make an effort to offer you all possible stances, with advantages and drawbacks - e.g. in Through the Ages you can be a fundamentalist if you like, which is great for military strength but your intellectual progress stagnates.
When I edited part of Games & Puzzles, I had fun reviewing a game on apartheid South Africa, which was designed on the basis that the whites couldn't possibly win in the end - they could just stave off defeat for a while. I took it to the South African Embassy and the ANC office and asked their opinions. The ANC guy said the game was too much based on military conquest from Angola etc., and realistically the regime would collapse from internal unrest. The Embassy official was non-committal, but a week later the game was banned in South Africa. Amused, I donated my fee for the article to the ANC guy.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
Well, yes, but his mother won't be too happy if it is. I'm not fussed about winning the argument, I just want to ensure two jabs get into his arms.
You can't force people, it is an elementary principle of consent.
Not unreasonable to exclude him from family gatherings though.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.
If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.
There are differences between those two options which aren't about money.
In the first one, what would you do about the old union's international treaty obligations, which include as
* a permanent member of the UN Security Council * a party to the Good Friday Agreement * a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances regarding the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Dissolving a union of "equals"rather than seceding implies that after dissolution Scotland might acquire the same rights and obligations as rump Britain. What if, just to take two examples, the other four veto powers on the UNSC, and Ukraine, aren't happy with that? Do you think they will turn around and say "Oh well, iScotland has been very prudent and responsible where its share (10%?) of the old state's debt is concerned, so we've got no problem with both successor states getting equal rights, especially since the old state was an union of equals"?
By the way, Scotland is NOT and has never been in a "union of equals" with the entity that comprises Wales, Northern Ireland, and the viscerally hated England, an entity that doesn't even have a name.
Maybe take a look at what happened to the treaty rights and obligations of the USSR at the end of 1991.
Horrific? Get a grip. Punch up of less than median duration and intensity.
Kicking someone in the throat can kill them.
One punch can kill. I was attacked once by someone high as a kite I hadn't seen coming in a nightclub, one punch put me in the hospital with a shattered eye socket that nearly left me blind in one eye.
So nah, I don't give a damn about duration. Punching people in the head, kicking people in the throat, is horrific even if its just once.
I am fully vaccinated and support and encourage anybody who can go get vaccinated.
I say that as a starter because I have a sad, very sad story to tell, A few weeks ago ago a relative of mine died the day after he was vaccinated, he is the brother in law of my sister in law, but on the other side of her family, if that makes since. it was a Saturday and he was looing after the 5 year old daughter, as his wife was working, when he stated to feel unwell, he called his parents who live near and asked if they could come and help look after the lintel one, as he was feeling bad. when they got to the house they could see her but not her dad, so they brock the door and got in, to be tolled, 'daddy's asleep in the kitchen and he wont wake up' he was a really nice chap, I did not know him well, just met him at my brother stage do and a few other family events. He was 35 ish.
I mention this because today, in the city where I work, a young ish lady had a bad reaction to the viruses I cant remember the name of the condition but her body continually shakes and she has to walk with crutches. all of the young people I work with seem to have it on there phones and seem to have all decided that they are not getting the jab and those who have had one jab are not getting the second.
I thought I would try to talk about it rationally and shared the experience above and noted that I recognised there consenes but hear are some numbers and facts, ...... lots more people die form the virus than the vaccine and even while the risk of death to people your age is small you could still get long Covid, vaccines work, and this one has now been tested on billions of people around the would, far moor than in any laboratory test, and we know there is a risk from the virus and we also know its very very small.
I completely failed to make an impact, I just got tolled to look again at the bloody video. maybe the thought of being permanently disabled is more freighting than death? or more likely a video is a powerful way of sharing a message.
saying lots more people die from the virus than the vaccine wont work with young people who are at little risk of dying from covid
Not zero though. We have several on ventilators or ECMO under 30 years old. Half will make it through.
How many were vaccinated (if its allowable for you to give info) ?
And among those not vaccinated what's their reaction to vaccination now ?
This I found interesting:
“One of the last things they do before they’re intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I’m sorry, but it’s too late,” she added, referring to patients who have to be put on a ventilator.
Wasn't very impressed with that doctor's bedside manner. Also seemed to be basically saying that "ventilator = death". I mean, it's not great, but it's not guaranteed death within a week either.
Why?
Why what?
Why not impressed with bedside manner, or why not guaranteed death?
I assume the former? Is the last thing you tell a patient before they are intubed that they have no hope and are going to die?
No, she is telling them it is too late to be vaccinated, which is an obvious truth. She wouldn't be incubating if there was no hope. In our unit about 60% of patients needing intubation survive.
The full quote:
‘One of the last things they do before they’re intubated is beg me for the vaccine. I hold their hand and tell them that I’m sorry, but it’s too late.
‘A few days later when I call time of death, I hug their family members and I tell them the best way to honor their loved one is to go get vaccinated and encourage everyone they know to do the same. They cry.
Maybe in reality she's not quite so blunt, or offers other reassurance.
I can't see any undue bluntness there, nor any scope for offering reassurance.
The quote reads to me as if they are being informed that there is no hope.
There could be a further statement about the prospect and likelihood of success of treatment.
It may be that that is done but not included in the account.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
- “… one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.”
Welcome to the world of Scots on PB threads.
Yes. When I read you and Malc I see Mr Spock like logic, devoid of emotion, superhuman in intelligence.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Why is he irrational in the first place?
Because he believes made up nonsense.
It’s not his fault. The gateway was probably the tooth fairy, the sandman and then the ultimate, Father Christmas. By the time he was ten he was used to believing made up stuff, because all the adults in his life told him they were real...
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
The exemption process for covid isolation for key industries seems a total f*cking clusterf*ck.
What goes on in the heads of the people designing this stuff?
Indeed. Would my diabetic patients really be happy with me treating them while my wife had covid, on the basis of daily LFT?
Or the HCAs in a nursing home carrying on personal care while their children had Delta?
Perhaps. If you're fully vaccinated and have a negative LFT then I'm sure your patients would rather be treated by you, than not be treated at all.
And that's going to be the rules from next month, isn't it?
It would be interesting to ask the patients if they minded, or whether they should see a colleague or rebook, when they check in at reception.
Can't you do it over the phone?
As a diabetic (not Covid patient) I would expect My Consultant to use the best practise to be done given the circs, and I would trust the judgement and expect to have it explained. Then I would make my decision about the treatment, and go with the medics 90-95% of the time.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Why is he irrational in the first place?
He's not, particularly. He's very cautious about the dangers of getting infected and passing the infection on to someone who is vulnerable. The problem is that youngsters get a lot of their information from social media; I suppose it comes down to inexperience about what sources of information are trustworthy, and how to evaluate them, and I'm not sure how you counter that.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
Trident would go to SuBase Kings Bay in GA with the US boomers as an interim measure that would end up permanent as that's the route of least resistance that keeps the US happy.
Scotland would get a NATO (or EU) air policing mission like Iceland does right now because that serves everybody's interests. GIUK remains covered. Scotland don't have to shell out for an air force.
I can see Scotland ending up in the same position for similar reasons.
The 26 counties are in Partnership for Peace which is stage one of the four stage path to NATO membership. PfP along with whatever EU defence structure supercedes PESCO is the logical destination for Scotland.
How does an Independent Scotland get into the EU?
It would need an independent currency which means balancing it's books and I dread to think what the Scottish budget deficit looks like.
If we’re dissolving a Union of equals, then we’ll be taking our share of the national debt.
If we’re leaving the UK, you can keep your own debt.
Even were that the case, we can't take your deficit!
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
Everyone seems very cautious here in North Dorset, just about everyone wearing masks in shops and 50% wearing masks in the street.
Really? Down in South Dorset its at max 50% in shops.
Sturminster Newton is obviously the cautious end of Dorset!
I was reflecting on your experience of mask and non-mask wearing customers:
- We've had 7 customers since opening yesterday (thats actually about normal, we sell rather expensive items). - 5 of them wore masks and spent less than 5 minutes in the shop - The other 2 were so delighted that we were not, and that we were happy for them not to; they stayed much longer and both spent serious amounts...
I am assuming you and any other staff were not wearing masks. You don't think the mask-wearers decided not to linger in your shop because of that?
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game. And if all it does is generate excitement largely among the existing T20 audience then it will even have failed on its own criteria for success.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game.
That's a reason to hate the ECB. Not to make claims like "its not cricket, its not trying to be cricket, it demean the name cricket".
It is cricket, it is trying to be cricket, it doesn't demean the name of cricket. Its a rebranded T20. If its cynically deployed that's politics of the sport, like the Premier League splitting from the Football League, but its absolutely not demeaning.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
It's basically a bunch of far-right conspiracy theorists associated with Donald Trump and QAnon. If your relative isn't a Trump fan, that might perhaps give him pause?
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
Banning foie gras is childishness? Can I say it's a view?
Yes, that’s a valid point of view. The French have a different point of view. And France has 26 pals; England has none.
I suspect the only reason it isn't banned in the EU is the French, rather than due to the support of their "pals".
Very clearly put! France, a member state, has power. England, a third country, has none.
Except for the power to ban foie gras, which is the entire point.
Fine. Go ahead. But don’t complain when the EU bans some of your exports.
I won't. If they want to have higher standards on something and want to completely criminalise a product then they're welcome to do that. Just as we are.
RCS is uncharacteristically wrong here. Us outlawing a product entirely is not a non-tariff barrier. An NTB is saying you can only sell it if you meet very tight requirements, which basically favours our producers over theirs. Since we don't have producers, since the product is illegal, that's not an NTB.
The idea that sparkling wine in a region can be called Champagne while anything else is called sparkling wine is more of an NTB.
We're not outlawing goose liver, only goose liver that has been prepared in a certain way.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
It's basically a bunch of far-right conspiracy theorists associated with Donald Trump and QAnon. If your relative isn't a Trump fan, that might perhaps give him pause?
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
Everyone seems very cautious here in North Dorset, just about everyone wearing masks in shops and 50% wearing masks in the street.
Really? Down in South Dorset its at max 50% in shops.
Sturminster Newton is obviously the cautious end of Dorset!
I was reflecting on your experience of mask and non-mask wearing customers:
- We've had 7 customers since opening yesterday (thats actually about normal, we sell rather expensive items). - 5 of them wore masks and spent less than 5 minutes in the shop - The other 2 were so delighted that we were not, and that we were happy for them not to; they stayed much longer and both spent serious amounts...
I am assuming you and any other staff were not wearing masks. You don't think the mask-wearers decided not to linger in your shop because of that?
Maybe. But they'd have had the same experience elsewhere. Even the supermarket staff in my town aren't wearing masks.
I've never understood the point of masks in shops when you sit in a restaurant for 10x as long not wearing them.
The exemption process for covid isolation for key industries seems a total f*cking clusterf*ck.
What goes on in the heads of the people designing this stuff?
Indeed. Would my diabetic patients really be happy with me treating them while my wife had covid, on the basis of daily LFT?
Or the HCAs in a nursing home carrying on personal care while their children had Delta?
Perhaps. If you're fully vaccinated and have a negative LFT then I'm sure your patients would rather be treated by you, than not be treated at all.
And that's going to be the rules from next month, isn't it?
It would be interesting to ask the patients if they minded, or whether they should see a colleague or rebook, when they check in at reception.
Can't you do it over the phone?
As a diabetic (not Covid patient) I would expect My Consultant to use the best practise to be done given the circs, and I would trust the judgement and expect to have it explained. Then I would make my decision about the treatment, and go with the medics 90-95% of the time.
I too am diabetic, though I don't have a consultant, just a GP whom I haven't seen in person for nigh on two years. He advises me on the various tests (bloods, bp) and issues prescriptions etc over the phone. I don't need to see him in person.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game. And if all it does is generate excitement largely among the existing T20 audience then it will even have failed on its own criteria for success.
But it won't do that. Because some of it is on free to air TV. By that very fact alone it will draw at least some new audience. Although it may be too late for the entire generation who never saw a single ball of live cricket unless their parents could afford SKY.
If we want to trade with any trading block whether it be sovereign state or supranational we have to follow the rules of that area. Jaguar have to build cars to American spec to sell them in America. The UK will have to supply products to EEA spec to sell them in the EEA. Why should we expect the other side to change or drop their rules because we say so? Does anyone do that?
Now if you apply that logic to the UK, you will see how silly it is to expect us to align with the EU just because they say so.
Silly, we are aligned because WE say so. The EEA rules are our rules!
No they're not. We've banned foie gras. That's at least one difference, where we now have higher standards and are looking at enforcing that with an import ban soon that wouldn't be possible in the EEA.
Where the two sets of rules are the same, why can't reciprocity be recognised?
Hang on: if we're banning the import of a product because it was not manufactured according to our standards, we're attempting to export our manufacturing rules to the world.
That is literally the very opposite of what Brexit is supposed be about.
One of the things that we both complain about is the EU attempting to export its standards. This is us saying "if you don't make something a certain way, we won't allow our people to buy it". If the EU turns around and says, "oh, you can't export cars to the EU unless your labour standards meet ours", that would be EXACTLY the same.
Penny drops.
Not really. By definition foie gras can't be produced to any standard that would be acceptable.
By definition Tory attacks on labour standards are unacceptable. You can’t pick and choose.
You've lost me there.
Irrelevant.
England says to ma to. EU says to mae toe. You’re both right and you’re both wrong.
This is where trade is headed: blatant childishness.
Banning foie gras is childishness? Can I say it's a view?
Yes, that’s a valid point of view. The French have a different point of view. And France has 26 pals; England has none.
I suspect the only reason it isn't banned in the EU is the French, rather than due to the support of their "pals".
Very clearly put! France, a member state, has power. England, a third country, has none.
Except for the power to ban foie gras, which is the entire point.
Fine. Go ahead. But don’t complain when the EU bans some of your exports.
I won't. If they want to have higher standards on something and want to completely criminalise a product then they're welcome to do that. Just as we are.
RCS is uncharacteristically wrong here. Us outlawing a product entirely is not a non-tariff barrier. An NTB is saying you can only sell it if you meet very tight requirements, which basically favours our producers over theirs. Since we don't have producers, since the product is illegal, that's not an NTB.
The idea that sparkling wine in a region can be called Champagne while anything else is called sparkling wine is more of an NTB.
We're not outlawing goose liver, only goose liver that has been prepared in a certain way.
Indeed, if its been prepared by torturing animals.
Indeed its not being marketed as goose liver, its being marketed as another product for which the torture of animals is part of its appeal.
There is no reason for us to export torture. If its not allowed domestically, there's no reason to import it.
The one near-certainty about the next election is that about 20 Tory seats will go the LDs. Seats like Cheltenham, Guildford and Winchester.
That’s a huge call this far out. I’ve yet to see anything that suggests the LD numbers are doing anything other than churn.
Agreed. Maybe one net gain for LDs. Fringe party now. Fringe party 2024. Good luck friends of Layla, Wera and Daisy 👍
The Northern strategy from the Conservatives in manna from heaven for the LibDems. (While also, of course, being absolutely the right thing to do morally.)
Simply, in Southern seats, the LDs will be able to portray the Conservatives as taking their money and sending it Ooop North.
Now, I don't think @AndyJS is right to think there are twenty seats at risk, I'd peg the actual number more like six. But I'd expect the LDs to end up with a result like 1979 or 1992 next time around - you know, 14-18% in the polls, and a similar number of seats.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game.
That's a reason to hate the ECB. Not to make claims like "its not cricket, its not trying to be cricket, it demean the name cricket".
It is cricket, it is trying to be cricket, it doesn't demean the name of cricket. Its a rebranded T20. If its cynically deployed that's politics of the sport, like the Premier League splitting from the Football League, but its absolutely not demeaning.
If you followed a lot of the early discussions you could be forgiven for getting the impression that is wasn't trying to be cricket. The fact that it has ended up as something that beyond the gimmicks is basically (T20) cricket just shows you how many of the crazy ideas ended up being chucked in the bin. But being successful in those circumstances (ignoring all the other issues i've mentioned) just in many ways emphasises a lot of the misguidedness of the idea. I mean FFS, it was even said it had to be 100 balls because T20 was too long to fit pretermined TV schedules. And yet already all the games are 'over-running'.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
I find telling them they are agreeing with
- QAnon - Tom Cotton - Marjorie Taylor Greene
tends to do it, for cutting young people off on the anti-vax thing.
The one near-certainty about the next election is that about 20 Tory seats will go the LDs. Seats like Cheltenham, Guildford and Winchester.
That’s a huge call this far out. I’ve yet to see anything that suggests the LD numbers are doing anything other than churn.
Agreed. Maybe one net gain for LDs. Fringe party now. Fringe party 2024. Good luck friends of Layla, Wera and Daisy 👍
The Northern strategy from the Conservatives in manna from heaven for the LibDems. (While also, of course, being absolutely the right thing to do morally.)
Simply, in Southern seats, the LDs will be able to portray the Conservatives as taking their money and sending it Ooop North.
Now, I don't think @AndyJS is right to think there are twenty seats at risk, I'd peg the actual number more like six. But I'd expect the LDs to end up with a result like 1979 or 1992 next time around - you know, 14-18% in the polls, and a similar number of seats.
What's the story behind all the fancy dressed twats assaulting the staff in Asda?
"Instagram entertainers" apparently. 🤦♂️
Also the ringleader has handily uploaded to YouTube a video including himself using his phone while driving, so that will be another bit of evidence for the Police. 🤦♂️
The exemption process for covid isolation for key industries seems a total f*cking clusterf*ck.
What goes on in the heads of the people designing this stuff?
Indeed. Would my diabetic patients really be happy with me treating them while my wife had covid, on the basis of daily LFT?
Or the HCAs in a nursing home carrying on personal care while their children had Delta?
Perhaps. If you're fully vaccinated and have a negative LFT then I'm sure your patients would rather be treated by you, than not be treated at all.
And that's going to be the rules from next month, isn't it?
It would be interesting to ask the patients if they minded, or whether they should see a colleague or rebook, when they check in at reception.
Can't you do it over the phone?
As a diabetic (not Covid patient) I would expect My Consultant to use the best practise to be done given the circs, and I would trust the judgement and expect to have it explained. Then I would make my decision about the treatment, and go with the medics 90-95% of the time.
I too am diabetic, though I don't have a consultant, just a GP whom I haven't seen in person for nigh on two years. He advises me on the various tests (bloods, bp) and issues prescriptions etc over the phone. I don't need to see him in person.
Refering to when I have been in hospital.
Sometimes short-circuiting systems helps.
I once formally refused treatment with the agreement of the medical staff and discharged myself to get out before the w/e not the following Monday - due to how arrangements would have to work.
At my Mam's for the first time in 18 months. Train down a nightmare though. Packed to standing room. Few masks. Many drunks singing at 2 in the afternoon. No ventilation. Indeed no windows could be opened. Aircon switched off "to prevent Covid"!
No masks anywhere at the moment. I was on a tram in Nottingham earlier and had to apply social distancing by 'pointing myself away from anyone'! Also I was on Regional Railways to Skegness yesterday and the mask concept appeared to be forgotten 😷.
Everyone seems very cautious here in North Dorset, just about everyone wearing masks in shops and 50% wearing masks in the street.
Really? Down in South Dorset its at max 50% in shops.
Sturminster Newton is obviously the cautious end of Dorset!
I was reflecting on your experience of mask and non-mask wearing customers:
- We've had 7 customers since opening yesterday (thats actually about normal, we sell rather expensive items). - 5 of them wore masks and spent less than 5 minutes in the shop - The other 2 were so delighted that we were not, and that we were happy for them not to; they stayed much longer and both spent serious amounts...
I am assuming you and any other staff were not wearing masks. You don't think the mask-wearers decided not to linger in your shop because of that?
Maybe. But they'd have had the same experience elsewhere. Even the supermarket staff in my town aren't wearing masks.
I've never understood the point of masks in shops when you sit in a restaurant for 10x as long not wearing them.
Fair point but antiquarian book purchases are rarely essential items are they?
Personally, double-vaccinated I am relatively relaxed but Mrs P (also vaccinated) is very reticent to go into any shops where masks aren't being worn. And there are plenty like her.
The one near-certainty about the next election is that about 20 Tory seats will go the LDs. Seats like Cheltenham, Guildford and Winchester.
That’s a huge call this far out. I’ve yet to see anything that suggests the LD numbers are doing anything other than churn.
Agreed. Maybe one net gain for LDs. Fringe party now. Fringe party 2024. Good luck friends of Layla, Wera and Daisy 👍
The Northern strategy from the Conservatives in manna from heaven for the LibDems. (While also, of course, being absolutely the right thing to do morally.)
Simply, in Southern seats, the LDs will be able to portray the Conservatives as taking their money and sending it Ooop North.
Now, I don't think @AndyJS is right to think there are twenty seats at risk, I'd peg the actual number more like six. But I'd expect the LDs to end up with a result like 1979 or 1992 next time around - you know, 14-18% in the polls, and a similar number of seats.
Yes quite plausible. Lots of excitement but unlikely to affect the election outcome.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
Well, yes, but his mother won't be too happy if it is. I'm not fussed about winning the argument, I just want to ensure two jabs get into his arms.
You can't force people, it is an elementary principle of consent.
Not unreasonable to exclude him from family gatherings though.
What's the story behind all the fancy dressed twats assaulting the staff in Asda?
"Instagram entertainers" apparently. 🤦♂️
Also the ringleader has handily uploaded to YouTube a video including himself using his phone while driving, so that will be another bit of evidence for the Police. 🤦♂️
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
Maybe but unlikely. We are talking about an average 20 something here
But again not known for sure. And I also don't think a decision made using false information can ever be rational.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
Well, yes, but his mother won't be too happy if it is. I'm not fussed about winning the argument, I just want to ensure two jabs get into his arms.
You can't force people, it is an elementary principle of consent.
Not unreasonable to exclude him from family gatherings though.
What a disgusting comment
Why? He is an infection risk to others.
Mrs Foxy is planning a family gathering August Bank Holiday. People will be asked to RSVP their vaccine status or have an LFT before joining. One of the guests is on chemotherapy, and we need to protect her.
He's not, particularly. He's very cautious about the dangers of getting infected and passing the infection on to someone who is vulnerable.
That's your hook in my opinion. Explain to him that essentially everybody will get covid in the long term, that realistically he can't avoid getting infected for the rest of his life. So his choice essentially comes down to this, the first time you get covid (and it may be a worse strain than now) your immune system can be naive, or you can get the vaccine and give your immune system a head start. Those really are the only two outcomes that the vast majority will get to choose from. People who think they can avoid covid forever are not likely to succeed.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
It’s really tough because they don’t seem to have developed a sense of what should be trusted and what to be wary of. Maybe try impact factor for the journal? Where is it from? Almost certainly not genuine - I mean how quickly has the Parkinson’s developed after vaccination? We’ve only been going for 8 months... Has someone had the jab and then afterwards been diagnosed with Parkinson’s? Almost certainly given the respective ages of patients and who we vaccinated first. Did one cause the other? Of course not.
Well, that's what I meant by the second option. Do we get into a discussion about that particular paper (it's obvious garbage, since Parkinson's doesn't develop that quickly), or is it a blind alley trying to deal with the reluctance that way? I suspect the latter.
It's not really worth arguing with delusions. It just annoys people. It's their funeral.
Well, yes, but his mother won't be too happy if it is. I'm not fussed about winning the argument, I just want to ensure two jabs get into his arms.
You can't force people, it is an elementary principle of consent.
Not unreasonable to exclude him from family gatherings though.
What a disgusting comment
Why? He is an infection risk to others.
Mrs Foxy is planning a family gathering August Bank Holiday. People will be asked to RSVP their vaccine status or have an LFT before joining. One of the guests is on chemotherapy, and we need to protect her.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
I find telling them they are agreeing with
- QAnon - Tom Cotton - Marjorie Taylor Greene
tends to do it, for cutting young people off on the anti-vax thing.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
I find telling them they are agreeing with
- QAnon - Tom Cotton - Marjorie Taylor Greene
tends to do it, for cutting young people off on the anti-vax thing.
Worth pointing out that Trump got vaccinated too!
Hang on, the idea is to convince him to get vaccinated.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Before the days of PC when AIDS was sweeping the country there was a story about a mother who took her son to the doctor. After an examination he told the mother the news she was dreading.
'I'm sorry but your son has AIDS'.
'Oh my God! Is there nothing I can do doctor?'
'Well yes. You can take your son home and give him a Chicken Korma followed by a Chicken Tikka Masala followed by a double Vindalu.'
'Oh thank you doctor! Will it get rid of his AIDS?'.
Wasn't the government guidance that if your extremely vulnerable (even vaccinated) to only attend gatherings where everybody else is vaccinated / done a lateral flow test?
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game.
That's a reason to hate the ECB. Not to make claims like "its not cricket, its not trying to be cricket, it demean the name cricket".
It is cricket, it is trying to be cricket, it doesn't demean the name of cricket. Its a rebranded T20. If its cynically deployed that's politics of the sport, like the Premier League splitting from the Football League, but its absolutely not demeaning.
If you followed a lot of the early discussions you could be forgiven for getting the impression that is wasn't trying to be cricket. The fact that it has ended up as something that beyond the gimmicks is basically (T20) cricket just shows you how many of the crazy ideas ended up being chucked in the bin. But being successful in those circumstances (ignoring all the other issues i've mentioned) just in many ways emphasises a lot of the misguidedness of the idea. I mean FFS, it was even said it had to be 100 balls because T20 was too long to fit pretermined TV schedules. And yet already all the games are 'over-running'.
Of the various "innovations" the one that is actually quite sensible is the "cut-off" that kicked in today in both the ladies and the men's games that meant the fielding team had to bring an extra player inside the circle at the end as punishment for bowling too slowly. A little unfortunate in the men's game as if it wasn't for the over with 4 consecutive extras (no ball then 3 consecutive wides) then they probably would have made the cut off in time.
That's a good innovation. If someone can up with something similar for if teams don't bowl 90 overs in a day in a Test then that would be something.
1. The changes in Cumbria are a bit meh. Good that Cumbria County Council has gone but having West and East Cumbria is daft. Here in Copeland we'll end up with the same remote authority in Carlisle which is hours away when in reality there are very close links with Barrow etc. So makes no sense. They should have listened to me!
2. Pleased that the Lib Dem's have held onto Fortune Green Ward. The retiring councillor, Flick Rea, has been a fantastic councillor so her successor, Nancy Jiriwa has benefited in part from a personal vote.
3. Had a most enjoyable time in Sale and Manchester. Went to the Tatton RHS Flower show - my first time. God it was hot - 31 degrees at one point with very little shade! But we had a most enjoyable and scrumptious picnic (asparagus, smoked salmon, roast beef, lots of wine etc) with a rather grande dame sat next to us tut-tutting in a friendly way that we really should have had linen napkins not paper towels.
4. The Whitworth Art Gallery was a bit empty. It had an interesting exhibition about clouds and war and some films from a group called Forensic Architecture which analyses clouds caused by bombs etc. But in the introductory pictures it missed a trick, to my mind, in not including a reference to Yeats' poem "An Irish Airman Foresees His Death" which beautifully and poignantly highlights both the futility of war and the resigned courage of its participants. Plus it talks about clouds. Painting pictures with words, in short. Anyway I told the attendants so and they politely affected interest in my views. They can't surely have many sunburnt middle-aged women recite poetry at them in any one day so I hope I upended their routine a little.
5. Very few masks around.
6. Traffic on the M60, M61 and M6 was awful. I'm glad to be home.
.. and the Hundred is a pile of crap destined for the scrapheap. I hope it fails. Its not cricket, its not trying to.be cricket, it demean the name cricket. I refuse to watch it any.more.
I don't get this level of hate.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
A lot of the hate is because the ECB have largely gutted existing competitions to accommodate it, including incidentally the existing very popular T20 competition. And when they first announced it were openly contemptuous of critics, basically telling them that they weren't the target audience and their views had no relevance.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
That may be cynical but T20 is/was popular in its own right and there's absolutely no reason why the Hundred won't be popular in its own right too.
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was addressing you not understanding the level of hate. I was explaining it's not simply about the format alone and on its own merits. It's everything associated with it, and the impact on the wider game.
That's a reason to hate the ECB. Not to make claims like "its not cricket, its not trying to be cricket, it demean the name cricket".
It is cricket, it is trying to be cricket, it doesn't demean the name of cricket. Its a rebranded T20. If its cynically deployed that's politics of the sport, like the Premier League splitting from the Football League, but its absolutely not demeaning.
If you followed a lot of the early discussions you could be forgiven for getting the impression that is wasn't trying to be cricket. The fact that it has ended up as something that beyond the gimmicks is basically (T20) cricket just shows you how many of the crazy ideas ended up being chucked in the bin. But being successful in those circumstances (ignoring all the other issues i've mentioned) just in many ways emphasises a lot of the misguidedness of the idea. I mean FFS, it was even said it had to be 100 balls because T20 was too long to fit pretermined TV schedules. And yet already all the games are 'over-running'.
Of the various "innovations" the one that is actually quite sensible is the "cut-off" that kicked in today in both the ladies and the men's games that meant the fielding team had to bring an extra player inside the circle at the end as punishment for bowling too slowly. A little unfortunate in the men's game as if it wasn't for the over with 4 consecutive extras (no ball then 3 consecutive wides) then they probably would have made the cut off in time.
That's a good innovation. If someone can up with something similar for if teams don't bowl 90 overs in a day in a Test then that would be something.
Not really. I expect it will get ditched before very long. And it's not really an innovation. Very similar things have been done before.
Christ i see GB News have hired another Talk Radio anti-mask, anti-lockdown nutter....any pretense of it being a serious news network is definitely gone (if it was ever true). Its becoming a parody of itself.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
I find telling them they are agreeing with
- QAnon - Tom Cotton - Marjorie Taylor Greene
tends to do it, for cutting young people off on the anti-vax thing.
Worth pointing out that Trump got vaccinated too!
Nearly all the Republican Loony types got themselves vax'd, early on.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
What does it mean for something to be "rational for him"? If I believe something rationally based on reasons that are mistaken, I want somebody to tell me how they're mistaken, so that I can rationally believe something that's right instead of something that's wrong. I don't want people to respect my bad information.
If it's not rational but it's just what he thinks, well no, that's not what "rational" means
1. The changes in Cumbria are a bit meh. Good that Cumbria County Council has gone but having West and East Cumbria is daft. Here in Copeland we'll end up with the same remote authority in Carlisle which is hours away when in reality there are very close links with Barrow etc. So makes no sense. They should have listened to me!
2. Pleased that the Lib Dem's have held onto Fortune Green Ward. The retiring councillor, Flick Rea, has been a fantastic councillor so her successor, Nancy Jiriwa has benefited in part from a personal vote.
3. Had a most enjoyable time in Sale and Manchester. Went to the Tatton RHS Flower show - my first time. God it was hot - 31 degrees at one point with very little shade! But we had a most enjoyable and scrumptious picnic (asparagus, smoked salmon, roast beef, lots of wine etc) with a rather grande dame sat next to us tut-tutting in a friendly way that we really should have had linen napkins not paper towels.
4. The Whitworth Art Gallery was a bit empty. It had an interesting exhibition about clouds and war and some films from a group called Forensic Architecture which analyses clouds caused by bombs etc. But in the introductory pictures it missed a trick, to my mind, in not including a reference to Yeats' poem "An Irish Airman Foresees His Death" which beautifully and poignantly highlights both the futility of war and the resigned courage of its participants. Plus it talks about clouds. Painting pictures with words, in short. Anyway I told the attendants so and they politely affected interest in my views. They can't surely have many sunburnt middle-aged women recite poetry at them in any one day so I hope I upended their routine a little.
5. Very few masks around.
6. Traffic on the M60, M61 and M6 was awful. I'm glad to be home.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Why is he irrational in the first place?
He's not, particularly. He's very cautious about the dangers of getting infected and passing the infection on to someone who is vulnerable. The problem is that youngsters get a lot of their information from social media; I suppose it comes down to inexperience about what sources of information are trustworthy, and how to evaluate them, and I'm not sure how you counter that.
Although it probably doesn't make sense (or maybe it does, it's complicated) people tend to trust information from people they know - this is part of the reason social media is powerful - so you might be able to pull "I checked out the thing about Parkinsons with my friend X who is a doctor, and he says it's a pile of pants".
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Why is he irrational in the first place?
He's not, particularly. He's very cautious about the dangers of getting infected and passing the infection on to someone who is vulnerable. The problem is that youngsters get a lot of their information from social media; I suppose it comes down to inexperience about what sources of information are trustworthy, and how to evaluate them, and I'm not sure how you counter that.
Although it probably doesn't make sense (or maybe it does, it's complicated) people tend to trust information from people they know - this is part of the reason social media is powerful - so you might be able to pull "I checked out the thing about Parkinsons with my friend X who is a doctor, and he says it's a pile of pants".
And/or that you've consulted with the finest psephologists out there, and they too say it's a pile of pants.
Comments
I have no idea if that has been scientifically proven but then he seems not to be bothered by proof so it may be worth a try.
As are some of the replies to that Tweet.
There is an assumption in there that it is significantly heightened compared to going to work without having been pinged. Do hospital staff have to take an LFT every day at the moment?
Palsy can be confused with PD.
Also, as far as I am aware, a person has Parkinson's for a while before the symptoms are noticeable. So to get it three weeks after a jab is just nuts frankly.
It is cricket. Its T20, just 5 balls per over instead of 6.
I don't get why they didn't just go with T20, but T20 is good so this has every bit as much chance of being good.
I enjoyed tonight's games. I would have enjoyed them just as much being a proper T20, but it being a quasi T20 is OK. 🤷♂️
I'd not read that article, but he's sort of right. Loads of games adopt colonial or miltarist themes without thinking twice - there's a popular game by Sid Meier, a very respected designer, in which characters who you've defeated are shown in a closing scene where they're being tortured. Many board games are simply abstract in design, with a fairly random theme on top, as the article says. He's right that most designers don't seem to think much about whether the theme they're choosing is in good taste.
I don't think many designers are ideological, and those that are intent on a message cover the usual range from left to right (e.g. People's Wargames is by an American communist, with games about the Bay of Pigs and the Great Patriotic War). Some make an effort to offer you all possible stances, with advantages and drawbacks - e.g. in Through the Ages you can be a fundamentalist if you like, which is great for military strength but your intellectual progress stagnates.
When I edited part of Games & Puzzles, I had fun reviewing a game on apartheid South Africa, which was designed on the basis that the whites couldn't possibly win in the end - they could just stave off defeat for a while. I took it to the South African Embassy and the ANC office and asked their opinions. The ANC guy said the game was too much based on military conquest from Angola etc., and realistically the regime would collapse from internal unrest. The Embassy official was non-committal, but a week later the game was banned in South Africa. Amused, I donated my fee for the article to the ANC guy.
Not unreasonable to exclude him from family gatherings though.
In the first one, what would you do about the old union's international treaty obligations, which include as
* a permanent member of the UN Security Council
* a party to the Good Friday Agreement
* a signatory of the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances regarding the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Dissolving a union of "equals"rather than seceding implies that after dissolution Scotland might acquire the same rights and obligations as rump Britain. What if, just to take two examples, the other four veto powers on the UNSC, and Ukraine, aren't happy with that? Do you think they will turn around and say "Oh well, iScotland has been very prudent and responsible where its share (10%?) of the old state's debt is concerned, so we've got no problem with both successor states getting equal rights, especially since the old state was an union of equals"?
By the way, Scotland is NOT and has never been in a "union of equals" with the entity that comprises Wales, Northern Ireland, and the viscerally hated England, an entity that doesn't even have a name.
Maybe take a look at what happened to the treaty rights and obligations of the USSR at the end of 1991.
One punch can kill. I was attacked once by someone high as a kite I hadn't seen coming in a nightclub, one punch put me in the hospital with a shattered eye socket that nearly left me blind in one eye.
So nah, I don't give a damn about duration. Punching people in the head, kicking people in the throat, is horrific even if its just once.
There could be a further statement about the prospect and likelihood of success of treatment.
It may be that that is done but not included in the account.
And also because along with this they've lectured the existing fan base that all this is necessary to get cricket on terrestrial TV and engage with a wider audience shut out from the game. Well one can understand why that gets short shrift when it was the ECB's decision to chase the money and completely remove pretty much all cricket from terrestrial TV in the first place.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
https://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/19464803.five-arrested-fight-breaks-clapham-junction-asda/
Even if its nothing other than a slightly shortened T20.
I was reflecting on your experience of mask and non-mask wearing customers: I am assuming you and any other staff were not wearing masks. You don't think the mask-wearers decided not to linger in your shop because of that?
It is cricket, it is trying to be cricket, it doesn't demean the name of cricket. Its a rebranded T20. If its cynically deployed that's politics of the sport, like the Premier League splitting from the Football League, but its absolutely not demeaning.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientist-warning-covid-vaccines-parkinson-neurodegenerative-disorders/
Here's the deal about that organisation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Health_Defense
It's basically a bunch of far-right conspiracy theorists associated with Donald Trump and QAnon. If your relative isn't a Trump fan, that might perhaps give him pause?
I've never understood the point of masks in shops when you sit in a restaurant for 10x as long not wearing them.
Because some of it is on free to air TV. By that very fact alone it will draw at least some new audience. Although it may be too late for the entire generation who never saw a single ball of live cricket unless their parents could afford SKY.
Indeed its not being marketed as goose liver, its being marketed as another product for which the torture of animals is part of its appeal.
There is no reason for us to export torture. If its not allowed domestically, there's no reason to import it.
Simply, in Southern seats, the LDs will be able to portray the Conservatives as taking their money and sending it Ooop North.
Now, I don't think @AndyJS is right to think there are twenty seats at risk, I'd peg the actual number more like six. But I'd expect the LDs to end up with a result like 1979 or 1992 next time around - you know, 14-18% in the polls, and a similar number of seats.
- QAnon
- Tom Cotton
- Marjorie Taylor Greene
tends to do it, for cutting young people off on the anti-vax thing.
Also the ringleader has handily uploaded to YouTube a video including himself using his phone while driving, so that will be another bit of evidence for the Police. 🤦♂️
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdca1hOnq8
Sometimes short-circuiting systems helps.
I once formally refused treatment with the agreement of the medical staff and discharged myself to get out before the w/e not the following Monday - due to how arrangements would have to work.
But I can sometimes be an impatient patient.
Personally, double-vaccinated I am relatively relaxed but Mrs P (also vaccinated) is very reticent to go into any shops where masks aren't being worn. And there are plenty like her.
How did that escalate to brutally assaulting members of staff? I presume the staff tried to stop them and they thought it was fine to beat them up?
Mrs Foxy is planning a family gathering August Bank Holiday. People will be asked to RSVP their vaccine status or have an LFT before joining. One of the guests is on chemotherapy, and we need to protect her.
Seems fair enough to me
'I'm sorry but your son has AIDS'.
'Oh my God! Is there nothing I can do doctor?'
'Well yes. You can take your son home and give him a Chicken Korma followed by a Chicken Tikka Masala followed by a double Vindalu.'
'Oh thank you doctor! Will it get rid of his AIDS?'.
'No but it'll teach him what his bottom's for'
That's a good innovation. If someone can up with something similar for if teams don't bowl 90 overs in a day in a Test then that would be something.
1. The changes in Cumbria are a bit meh. Good that Cumbria County Council has gone but having West and East Cumbria is daft. Here in Copeland we'll end up with the same remote authority in Carlisle which is hours away when in reality there are very close links with Barrow etc. So makes no sense. They should have listened to me!
2. Pleased that the Lib Dem's have held onto Fortune Green Ward. The retiring councillor, Flick Rea, has been a fantastic councillor so her successor, Nancy Jiriwa has benefited in part from a personal vote.
3. Had a most enjoyable time in Sale and Manchester. Went to the Tatton RHS Flower show - my first time. God it was hot - 31 degrees at one point with very little shade! But we had a most enjoyable and scrumptious picnic (asparagus, smoked salmon, roast beef, lots of wine etc) with a rather grande dame sat next to us tut-tutting in a friendly way that we really should have had linen napkins not paper towels.
4. The Whitworth Art Gallery was a bit empty. It had an interesting exhibition about clouds and war and some films from a group called Forensic Architecture which analyses clouds caused by bombs etc. But in the introductory pictures it missed a trick, to my mind, in not including a reference to Yeats' poem "An Irish Airman Foresees His Death" which beautifully and poignantly highlights both the futility of war and the resigned courage of its participants. Plus it talks about clouds. Painting pictures with words, in short. Anyway I told the attendants so and they politely affected interest in my views. They can't surely have many sunburnt middle-aged women recite poetry at them in any one day so I hope I upended their routine a little.
5. Very few masks around.
6. Traffic on the M60, M61 and M6 was awful. I'm glad to be home.
If it's not rational but it's just what he thinks, well no, that's not what "rational" means