I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.
Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
I remember listening to a podcast and stories that involved adorable animals generate lots of clicks which sees ad revenues increase for the media.
This is the perfect story for the media.
Geronimo's devastated owner has accused the Government of 'murdering' her alpaca and demanded an independent witness be present at his post-mortem
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations by birthrate either
I’m sure somebody can use selective:non-selective education authorities vs. Oxbridge places as an analogue to demonstrate your flawed thinking here…
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.
Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
I remember listening to a podcast and stories that involved adorable animals generate lots of clicks which sees ad revenues increase for the media.
This is the perfect story for the media.
Geronimo's devastated owner has accused the Government of 'murdering' her alpaca and demanded an independent witness be present at his post-mortem
Comes back to that question of whether it's more "humane" to keep animals, gambolling or otherwise, and then kill them or not to have the animals in the first place.
I think that takes 2 seconds to decide. Having animals to live a miserable life is emphatically worse than not having them. I'd say the same of deciding to have children, come to that - if you think they'd be unhappy, don't.
What about the lambs and their happy gambolling lives, rather than the battery hens ?
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy is now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Did he really say that?
Africans also eat more bananas than we do. Would that be a possible route to raising our birthrate?
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Comes back to that question of whether it's more "humane" to keep animals, gambolling or otherwise, and then kill them or not to have the animals in the first place.
I think that takes 2 seconds to decide. Having animals to live a miserable life is emphatically worse than not having them. I'd say the same of deciding to have children, come to that - if you think they'd be unhappy, don't.
So what you deem a miserable life for an animal (looking forward to seeing the poll results, er, from the horse's mouth, as it were) then don't have them to start with, but those animals you deem to live a great life then that's fine.
So you accept in principle it is good to have animals which we then kill but you are applying some kind of Nick Palmer scale of suffering to determine which ones.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 nations by birthrate either
I’m sure somebody can use selective:non-selective education authorities vs. Oxbridge places as an analogue to demonstrate your flawed thinking here…
I was right on that too, selective Bucks, Kent, Trafford etc all having above average Oxbridge admission
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic, ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route, and fail miserably, than appoint an experienced gun for hire
Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course. Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit. I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.
Its like eating puppies to me now.
Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them?
Yes.
I've never had them as a pet personally though, so all I have to say about that is they're best served with mint sauce.
So you'll eat anything you haven't had as a pet?
I wouldn't eat cats or people.
Ok. Noted for if you ever come round to mine.
Have you anything in particular in mind? I have quite an adventurous palate. Within reason I'll try anything once.
Given it's you I think it'll have to be a heaped plate of "Australian style" bush tucker.
Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them? -------- Yes, I had exactly that experience and resolved never to eat lamb again. Awkwardly, in my current job we advise that it's often more humane to eat lamb and beef than chicken, because they on many farms they live reasonable lives outdoors and chickens generally have pretty hellish lives. Just eating less of meat generally is undoubtedly a good idea, from both humane and climate change perspectives.
We converted half our dining room into a pen and hand reared 2 orphan lambs. A fulfilling experience and they were incredibly cute. They both grew strong enough to go out to pasture after a few weeks.
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route and fail miserably than appoint an experienced gun for hire
I'm not sure Arsenal institutionally is ready for such a young manager of the type you describe. Arsene (who I wouldn't have sacked, despite some increasingly incomprehensible decisions) imprinted himself on the club to the extent that it doesn't seem right to be managed by someone without some degree of gravitas and authority.
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route and fail miserably than appoint an experienced gun for hire
I'm not sure Arsenal institutionally is ready for such a young manager of the type you describe. Arsene (who I wouldn't have sacked, despite some increasingly incomprehensible decisions) imprinted himself on the club to the extent that it doesn't seem right to be managed by someone without some degree of gravitas and authority.
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
I think the time could be right for Arsene to be the DoF. He should have some role at the club
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them? -------- Yes, I had exactly that experience and resolved never to eat lamb again. Awkwardly, in my current job we advise that it's often more humane to eat lamb and beef than chicken, because they on many farms they live reasonable lives outdoors and chickens generally have pretty hellish lives. Just eating less of meat generally is undoubtedly a good idea, from both humane and climate change perspectives.
We converted half our dining room into a pen and hand reared 2 orphan lambs. A fulfilling experience and they were incredibly cute. They both grew strong enough to go out to pasture after a few weeks.
My favourite curry is still a lamb dopiaza.
Particularly cruel to rear them in a place where where they could see directly where they would finally end up. I hope you abstained from lamb while you were rearing them.
I assumed high birthrates were also a consequence of high infant mortality.
Yes. Good point.
I seem to remember reading that there is a significant delay / lag time between when high infant mortality is cured and the size of families changing to reflect that change in infant mortality.
Africa is very much in that lag time which is why population numbers have been rising so quickly.
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route and fail miserably than appoint an experienced gun for hire
I'm not sure Arsenal institutionally is ready for such a young manager of the type you describe. Arsene (who I wouldn't have sacked, despite some increasingly incomprehensible decisions) imprinted himself on the club to the extent that it doesn't seem right to be managed by someone without some degree of gravitas and authority.
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
I think the time could be right for Arsene to be the DoF. He should have some role at the club
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route and fail miserably than appoint an experienced gun for hire
I'm not sure Arsenal institutionally is ready for such a young manager of the type you describe. Arsene (who I wouldn't have sacked, despite some increasingly incomprehensible decisions) imprinted himself on the club to the extent that it doesn't seem right to be managed by someone without some degree of gravitas and authority.
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
Nonsense.
Unai Emery had won three European trophies in the run up to becoming Arsenal manager.
That's gravitas and authority right there.
Because he couldn't speak English fluently as Wenger or a Klopp people took the piss out of him.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries has a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate. They are ALL under 2.1 replacement rate (the closest being Georgia at 2.05 which has 81% saying religion is important to them). It is the whole of Europe which is in demographic decline in comparison to Africa for example. Hence not only is Africa growing but so many Africans are trying to move to Europe where we have a shortage of workers of working age.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
Robert is giving you statistics, and you are coming back with anecdotes.
Anyone can cherry pick the data - it would be easy enough to say that Thailand, for example, has very high religiosity, and very low birth rate.
It seems to me that there are more likely explanations for the patterns on birth rates than religion, and Robert's stats tend to support that.
Indeed, even to the extent they are linked, it may simply be via a common third factor. For example, in grindingly poor countries with poor healthcare and tiny welfare states, children are often people's pension plan (and they may lose some along the way). Whereas in the developed world, they are a net cost to the parents - a luxury good. The same may explain a desire to believe in a higher power - that the suffering of life isn't in vain. This is consistent with Robert's stats which illustrate, when you control (albeit imperfectly) for how developed a country is by looking at just fairly similar, reasonably well off countries, religiosity ceases to be a predictor of higher birth rate (and possibly becomes the reverse).
Just spent $10 million on my first punk digital avatar. 🤣#NewProfilePic #TPUNK 3442 https://t.co/Oeijxcs7mK
Tulips....
If you save the McDonald's logo image to your PC you now own:
a) a McDonald's franchise
b) the McDonald's brand
c) the McDonald's logo
d) nothing of McDonald's
Replace McDonald's with NFT.
You don't don't get it grandad, that's while you will be working for the rest of your life braaaa.
If all seriousness, i can actually see a use for NFTs for certain digital assets, especially if you are going to claim royalties.....but not millions for a pixel avatar.
It might see a government backlash, but who would benefit? Cheeky of the Independent to accompany this with a photo of Sir Keir sitting on a fence
"Labour leader Keir Starmer backs decision to kill alpaca Geronimo
When asked if the Government’s stance was right, he added: “I think there’s no alternative, sadly."
“I do actually understand why emotions are so high as they would be with farmers as well who, on a not-irregular basis, have to lose animals that are very valuable to them.”"
Not sure if you saw it earlier @isam, what do you make of my Starmer = Arteta comparison? Both useless and out of their depth.
I saw it! Tough times for Arteta, that is for sure.
I don't know that Sir Keir is useless and out of his depth - if he were PM he probably would do a competent enough job as far as I can judge. I just think LotO's have to have a certain something to usurp PM's, and he hasn't got it. So he is probably useless and out of his depth as a LotO, but counter intuitively wouldnt be as a PM
You could say both men were handed very tricky tasks
It is so true that Arteta should have gone to Everton and Ancelotti to the Arse. Whether Ancelotti would nevertheless have returned to RM perhaps he would have that said.
I wouldn't have sacked Unai, I think it needed someone like him to stabilise the squad after Arsene, but given we did, I was pleased to see Arteta be given a go - I have had a happy time supporting Arsenal over the last 40 years, and would rather go for the romantic ex player wanting to impose his philosophy route and fail miserably than appoint an experienced gun for hire
I'm not sure Arsenal institutionally is ready for such a young manager of the type you describe. Arsene (who I wouldn't have sacked, despite some increasingly incomprehensible decisions) imprinted himself on the club to the extent that it doesn't seem right to be managed by someone without some degree of gravitas and authority.
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
I think the time could be right for Arsene to be the DoF. He should have some role at the club
Agree. Or even the manager...
Towards the end of his reign I used to get more nervous about the mauling he'd get from the press and fans if we lost than I did annoyed at us losing! But it felt like we had something that no other club had, a long serving manager who loved us, and that was great. I would never have called for him to go, even if I thought he should
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Wow! A thread I find even less interesting than SeanT whittling on about the Wuhan lab leak.
I can't believe a diseased animal having to be put down is a "story". Absolutely ridiculous.
Nothing will ever beat the time David Cameron bought some fish in Morrisons.
That wasn't a month of headlines....one story on this animal perhaps, but it has been a daily major story. I presume somebody important is involved and thus behind this.
I remember listening to a podcast and stories that involved adorable animals generate lots of clicks which sees ad revenues increase for the media.
This is the perfect story for the media.
Geronimo's devastated owner has accused the Government of 'murdering' her alpaca and demanded an independent witness be present at his post-mortem
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
I assumed high birthrates were also a consequence of high infant mortality.
Yes. Good point.
I seem to remember reading that there is a significant delay / lag time between when high infant mortality is cured and the size of families changing to reflect that change in infant mortality.
Africa is very much in that lag time which is why population numbers have been rising so quickly.
There is. A drop in child mortality leads to a large age cohort of fertile females for 3 decades or so.
Hence much of the increase in population of Sub Saharan Africa is baked in.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Did he really say that?
Africans also eat more bananas than we do. Would that be a possible route to raising our birthrate?
According to some videos on t'Internet, women and bananas will lead to a massive *decrease* in birthrate ...
Have you never seen little lambs gamboling about a field without a care in the world, every now and again stopping to nibble at the grass, rubbing up against each other for companionship, happy in the knowledge they have their whole lives ahead of them? -------- Yes, I had exactly that experience and resolved never to eat lamb again. Awkwardly, in my current job we advise that it's often more humane to eat lamb and beef than chicken, because they on many farms they live reasonable lives outdoors and chickens generally have pretty hellish lives. Just eating less of meat generally is undoubtedly a good idea, from both humane and climate change perspectives.
In 2019 the meat consumption in my household was reduced by more than half. My cat died and I didn't replace it. It ate more meat than I do.
I assumed high birthrates were also a consequence of high infant mortality.
Yes. Good point.
I seem to remember reading that there is a significant delay / lag time between when high infant mortality is cured and the size of families changing to reflect that change in infant mortality.
Africa is very much in that lag time which is why population numbers have been rising so quickly.
There is. A drop in child mortality leads to a large age cohort of fertile females for 3 decades or so.
Hence much of the increase in population of Sub Saharan Africa is baked in.
Oh I originally was going to say 20 years - I'm glad I didn't, 30 years is long enough for the consequences of few child deaths and too many adults to become obvious
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Did he really say that?
Africans also eat more bananas than we do. Would that be a possible route to raising our birthrate?
But as @TSE has pointed out, in Africa Banana's purpose was sodomy, which doesn't help to raise the birthrate.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Excellently said.
Would make the basis of a very good thread header as far too frequently misconceptions and misunderstanding of data pervert people's analysis.
I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.
"Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."
You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.
One way to get a fraction closer to getting rid of Boris Johnson: a daily summary of how many of these rescue animals have had to be destroyed because they were too diseased or too disturbed to be rehomed, accompanied by a daily summary of how many of the people the UK failed to rescue from Afghanistan have been beaten, raped, shot and beheaded by the Taliban.
Probably wouldn't do any good, but there's a project at least for some industrious hack to get his or her teeth into.
I checked google and it seems rabies will be a big risk for this soft shite's dogs.
"Rabies remains a major public health concern in Afghanistan. Although the disease is present in many wild animals, most cases in humans are caused by dog bites."
You don't need a bite, even a lick of gratitude will do the trick. If this Farthing starts frothing at the mouth and making wild statements - it will be kinder to have him 'put to sleep'.
One way to get a fraction closer to getting rid of Boris Johnson: a daily summary of how many of these rescue animals have had to be destroyed because they were too diseased or too disturbed to be rehomed, accompanied by a daily summary of how many of the people the UK failed to rescue from Afghanistan have been beaten, raped, shot and beheaded by the Taliban.
Probably wouldn't do any good, but there's a project at least for some industrious hack to get his or her teeth into.
It is reported they are vaccinated
They would not have been let in to the UK otherwise.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If it meant the freedom to travel internationally again, I'd happily be jabbed every 6 months for the rest of my life. Hell, in my younger days, I was willing to be jabbed 3 or 4 times just for one trip to a tropical locale.
I don't get this fixation on restrictions based on vaccinations as being qualitatively different than other restrictions on our freedoms we so happily accept that we don't even notice them.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Yet even amongst over 50s graduates, although a smaller share of the population for that age group, were still more likely to vote Remain than non graduates amongst their age group.
The correlation only really kicks in at religiosity rates above 90% I will concede that but it is clearly there once the vast majority of the population are religious. Hence every nation with above 90% of the population saying religion is important to them has a well above average birthrate.
Or in the case of Israel because a significant segment of the population ie Orthodox Jews are very religious and hence make a large contribution to pushing up the nation's birthrate
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Though as a psychological matter at some point societies like UK are going to make a shift from 'crisis mode' to 'this how life is so how do we normalise it'. I think this will happen between about now and the middle of next year, as we have all had enough of permanent crisis mode.
What will life look like if permanence is that Covid is one more disease that people get, and many die from, just like many die from other causes? I think we shall have to get there soon.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Did he really say that?
Africans also eat more bananas than we do. Would that be a possible route to raising our birthrate?
But as @TSE has pointed out, in Africa Banana's purpose was sodomy, which doesn't help to raise the birthrate.
A shame old Caanan was not given to irrumation. Headline: Man Forced To Eat Banana.
Rory Burns is poised to be named as England’s vice-captain for Thursday’s fourth Test against India at his home ground of the Oval.
The Surrey batsman is expected to replace Jos Buttler in the role, with the keeper-batsman missing this Test due to the imminent birth of his second child. He is also expected to miss the fifth Test at Old Trafford, which begins on Sep 10.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
Freedom already is conditional. Ask anyone who has been incarcerated.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
You really are a twit.
It's like the MOT test, isn't it? We thought it would stop with having our cars checked for roadworthiness once a year. Now we have the weekly electric toothbrush inspection, the monthly audits of our lawnmowers. And only you saw it coming.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Why? I happily get a flu jab every year. Vaccines don't impinge on my freedom one iota. Brexit on the other hand has several times. Should we stop that? Please ignore the last 2 sentences as we can't go there
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Depends what you're doing.
Let's remember that @hyufd is more closely involved in the messy business of electoral politics than most of us- even here. And electoral politics isn't an entirely rational process. Sometimes it is about advocacy and "what data can I extract that points in the direction that my instincts- or the instincts of my voters- want?" rather than "what's objectively best?" If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have the government we currently have.
(A certain kind of religious thinking probably does correlate with having lots of babies, partly because that's what God is said to want. Mostly because those in charge prefer it that way, and haven't moved on from a world where number of people =power. Religion in Europe, even in places with lots of religion, even when that religion looks pretty conservative, is pretty liberal in the grand scheme of things.)
To be serious about vegetarianism for once (not veganism; I can never be serious about veganism): what many vegetarians get wrong is that the problem isn't that most of us eat meat. We're omnivores. It's the way we've evolved. It's the easiest way to a balanced diet.
The problem isn't eating meat. It's the *amount* of meat we eat.
Traditionally, meat was a scarcity for many cultures. Vegetables/fruit were much more common. A little bit of meat with a lot of vegetables gives us what we need.
Instead, many of us eat a lot of meat with a few, if any, vegetables or fruit. As an extreme, I had a colleague who called himself a 'meatarian': he would return food at the pub if it came with any vegetables.
Campaigns (and there are some) to east *less* meat, rather than berating us as evil for eating any meat, might gain better traction and allow better animal welfare.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Excellently said.
Would make the basis of a very good thread header as far too frequently misconceptions and misunderstanding of data pervert people's analysis.
There certainly seems to be a close relationship between religiosity, poverty and life expectancy. I think though all correlate with lack of economic development. People with exposure to the capriciousness of life tend to be more religious, in an attempt to make sense of the world, while those who can control their environment try to behave as gods.
I think @HYUFD is making another error in addition. It is not the average religiosity that matters, it is the religiosity of fertile females that likely matters. Hence there can be a very fertile religious minority in a largely secular country that masks the overall low fertility of secular society there.
I would argue that communities where only the older people are religious have a lower birthrate than those where the young are. Obviously in most MENA countries there is a young mean population too.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Excellently said.
Would make the basis of a very good thread header as far too frequently misconceptions and misunderstanding of data pervert people's analysis.
You are absolutely right, but it won't make a blind bit of difference to those who misuse the data either intentionally or unintentionally.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Yet even amongst over 50s graduates, although a smaller share of the population for that age group, were still more likely to vote Remain than non graduates amongst their age group.
The correlation only really kicks in at religiosity rates above 90% I will concede that but it is clearly there once the vast majority of the population are religious. Hence every nation with above 90% of the population saying religion is important to them has a well above average birthrate.
Or in the case of Israel because a significant segment of the population ie Orthodox Jews are very religious and hence make a large contribution to pushing up the nation's birthrate
Name a single nation over 90% religious that is well educated and developed?
Or does being undeveloped lead to both higher birth rates and higher religiosity?
Rory Burns is poised to be named as England’s vice-captain for Thursday’s fourth Test against India at his home ground of the Oval.
The Surrey batsman is expected to replace Jos Buttler in the role, with the keeper-batsman missing this Test due to the imminent birth of his second child. He is also expected to miss the fifth Test at Old Trafford, which begins on Sep 10.
Bairstow or Ali should be vice captain ahead of Burns.
Why? Do we know that Bairstow or Ali are adept at tactics, or especially good leaders within the squad?
They might well be, or have more experience at such a role, but I don't know how any of us can relaly know who is best placed for such a role. Same reason fans usually think the best player should be captain, even if being the best player is no certain indicator of being a good captain.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Yet even amongst over 50s graduates, although a smaller share of the population for that age group, were still more likely to vote Remain than non graduates amongst their age group.
The correlation only really kicks in at religiosity rates above 90% I will concede that but it is clearly there once the vast majority of the population are religious. Hence every nation with above 90% of the population saying religion is important to them has a well above average birthrate.
Or in the case of Israel because a significant segment of the population ie Orthodox Jews are very religious and hence make a large contribution to pushing up the nation's birthrate
Name a single nation over 90% religious that is well educated and developed?
Or does being undeveloped lead to both higher birth rates and higher religiosity?
To be serious about vegetarianism for once (not veganism; I can never be serious about veganism): what many vegetarians get wrong is that the problem isn't that most of us eat meat. We're omnivores. It's the way we've evolved. It's the easiest way to a balanced diet.
The problem isn't eating meat. It's the *amount* of meat we eat.
Traditionally, meat was a scarcity for many cultures. Vegetables/fruit were much more common. A little bit of meat with a lot of vegetables gives us what we need.
Instead, many of us eat a lot of meat with a few, if any, vegetables or fruit. As an extreme, I had a colleague who called himself a 'meatarian': he would return food at the pub if it came with any vegetables.
Campaigns (and there are some) to east *less* meat, rather than berating us as evil for eating any meat, might gain better traction and allow better animal welfare.
Indeed, and that is very much the orientation of CWF, a charity that I support.
In addition meat is a very strong flavour that dominates the palate. As well as being healthier, a diet with much less meat is also one with a wider range of tastes.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Why? I happily get a flu jab every year. Vaccines don't impinge on my freedom one iota. Brexit on the other hand has several times. Should we stop that? Please ignore the last 2 sentences as we can't go there
Whilst being massively pro vaccination, I am also massively anti vaccine passports.
I don't get the flu jab. Never have done.
Do you think I shouldn't be able to go to cinemas?
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
Rory Burns is poised to be named as England’s vice-captain for Thursday’s fourth Test against India at his home ground of the Oval.
The Surrey batsman is expected to replace Jos Buttler in the role, with the keeper-batsman missing this Test due to the imminent birth of his second child. He is also expected to miss the fifth Test at Old Trafford, which begins on Sep 10.
Bairstow or Ali should be vice captain ahead of Burns.
Why? Do we know that Bairstow or Ali are adept at tactics, or especially good leaders within the squad?
They might well be, or have more experience at such a role, but I don't know how any of us can relaly know who is best placed for such a role. Same reason fans usually think the best player should be captain, even if being the best player is no certain indicator of being a good captain.
Likewise, the most competent engineer should not necessarily be elevated to the position of manager, etc...
Rory Burns is poised to be named as England’s vice-captain for Thursday’s fourth Test against India at his home ground of the Oval.
The Surrey batsman is expected to replace Jos Buttler in the role, with the keeper-batsman missing this Test due to the imminent birth of his second child. He is also expected to miss the fifth Test at Old Trafford, which begins on Sep 10.
Bairstow or Ali should be vice captain ahead of Burns.
Why? Do we know that Bairstow or Ali are adept at tactics, or especially good leaders within the squad?
They might well be, or have more experience at such a role, but I don't know how any of us can relaly know who is best placed for such a role. Same reason fans usually think the best player should be captain, even if being the best player is no certain indicator of being a good captain.
Ali has captained Worcestershire and the England ODI team, pretty good with the former, small size for the latter.
Bairstow I think captained the England age groups.
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
No we are talking about the WHOLE world.
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy are now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Excellently said.
Would make the basis of a very good thread header as far too frequently misconceptions and misunderstanding of data pervert people's analysis.
There certainly seems to be a close relationship between religiosity, poverty and life expectancy. I think though all correlate with lack of economic development. People with exposure to the capriciousness of life tend to be more religious, in an attempt to make sense of the world, while those who can control their environment try to behave as gods.
I think @HYUFD is making another error in addition. It is not the average religiosity that matters, it is the religiosity of fertile females that likely matters. Hence there can be a very fertile religious minority in a largely secular country that masks the overall low fertility of secular society there.
I would argue that communities where only the older people are religious have a lower birthrate than those where the young are. Obviously in most MENA countries there is a young mean population too.
That is a sensible point, in Italy or Greece for example the most religious will be older and beyond motherhood or fatherhood age.
In Africa however plenty of under 40s of motherhood or fatherhood age are very religious.
While the churches of Europe tend to be filled with over 60s even in the most religious European nations (except for the charismatic evangelical ones which have an above average black congregation anyway), the churches of Africa are filled with those in their 20s or 30s
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Though as a psychological matter at some point societies like UK are going to make a shift from 'crisis mode' to 'this how life is so how do we normalise it'. I think this will happen between about now and the middle of next year, as we have all had enough of permanent crisis mode.
What will life look like if permanence is that Covid is one more disease that people get, and many die from, just like many die from other causes? I think we shall have to get there soon.
I think it won't be just my ICU and respiratory ward colleagues that get fed up with so much health resource being consumed by anti-vaxxers.
It is a factor in why Mrs Foxy and her colleagues won't accept redeployment to ICU again. What they see there is so unnecessary and self inflicted.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
And you still pretend you're not an antivaxxer 😂
As for how many jabs I will take: as many as are required.
As for being a second class citizen: good! If someone's civil liberties are to be restricted I'd far rather it be yours than mine.
You lose all moral rights to complain about lockdowns if you won't do the ONLY thing that makes lockdowns unnecessary. Anyone antilockdown should be the first in line for their jabs.
The relationship between fertility rate, wealth and religiosity varies from country to country according to the unique circumstances of each, but a consistent direct relationship between religiosity and fertility rate doesn't exist. The main determinant of fertility rate is female access to education, economic opportunities and contraception, and these factors all go hand-in-hand with development, not the prevalence of God bothering.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
Not easily. They possibly can but it's not easily.
To be serious about vegetarianism for once (not veganism; I can never be serious about veganism): what many vegetarians get wrong is that the problem isn't that most of us eat meat. We're omnivores. It's the way we've evolved. It's the easiest way to a balanced diet.
The problem isn't eating meat. It's the *amount* of meat we eat.
Traditionally, meat was a scarcity for many cultures. Vegetables/fruit were much more common. A little bit of meat with a lot of vegetables gives us what we need.
Instead, many of us eat a lot of meat with a few, if any, vegetables or fruit. As an extreme, I had a colleague who called himself a 'meatarian': he would return food at the pub if it came with any vegetables.
Campaigns (and there are some) to east *less* meat, rather than berating us as evil for eating any meat, might gain better traction and allow better animal welfare.
Indeed, and that is very much the orientation of CWF, a charity that I support.
In addition meat is a very strong flavour that dominates the palate. As well as being healthier, a diet with much less meat is also one with a wider range of tastes.
"In addition meat is a very strong flavour that dominates the palate."
I do wonder how much evolution has had to do with this. Meat was rare compared to vegetables and fruit, but good for us. Therefore we are more attracted to meat.
Now that meat is much more available (and this has really only been in the last hundred years, if that), it is a problem.
I think of all the rich people in Victorian times who were fat; a victim of the over-availability of food and meat?
(I might be wrong in this, but gout is often caused by eating too much meat. In French, 'gout' means taste.)
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Though as a psychological matter at some point societies like UK are going to make a shift from 'crisis mode' to 'this how life is so how do we normalise it'. I think this will happen between about now and the middle of next year, as we have all had enough of permanent crisis mode.
What will life look like if permanence is that Covid is one more disease that people get, and many die from, just like many die from other causes? I think we shall have to get there soon.
I think it won't be just my ICU and respiratory ward colleagues that get fed up with so much health resource being consumed by anti-vaxxers.
It is a factor in why Mrs Foxy and her colleagues won't accept redeployment to ICU again. What they see there is so unnecessary and self inflicted.
Can i ask, are you also fed up with so much health resources being consumed by teenagers who are so obese they need joint operations? or get Type 2 diabetes when they otherwise wouldn't?
People are, well, fallible aren't they? And some people who are un vaccinated have had and recovered from covid. They are no threat to anybody.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
Not easily. They possibly can but it's not easily.
The complications of a) infection after vaccination and b) waning protection make c) any form of restrictions based on vaccination frankly even more ludicrous than they were before.
Finding a better, cheaper and more easily delivered treatment is surely the silver bullet now that Covid has become endemic.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
You must be furious about speed limits, mandatory seat belts, and the requirement to drive on the left. Think of all the freedoms that are taken away! Not to mention mandatory taxation. The health and safety executive. Banking regulation. TV licenses...
Birth control campaign in the 90s, says the internet
Iran has a surprisingly high rate of female tertiary education, particularly since 1979. It is not the Taliban that rule there:
"In 1975 just four years before the Revolution, fewer than 30% of Iranian women were literate. In 2015 that number was over 80%, nearly on par with male literacy. In 1977 the country had 16 universities with 154 000 undergraduate students. Today, Iran has 51 state universities and potentially as many as 354 private higher education institutions, increasing the number of students enrolled from 1.3 million in 1999 to 4.7 million in 2014. Over the past decade, women in higher education institutions have constituted at least 50% of the population, and 60% of those who passed the national examination for university entrance were women."
Iran has quite a problem of graduate unemployment, particularly for females. It does seem that it is female education, not employment that reduces fertility.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
Not easily. They possibly can but it's not easily.
Some unvaccinated people have had delta covid. The ONS shows that reinfection in these cases, and thus therefore the ability to pass covid on, is very low.
It would make far more sense, surely, to make antibody testing the yardstick, rather than vaccination? does it really matter how you acquire your protection?
I've played too much Tropico, in which as El Presidente of a Banana Republic, you sanction theassassination of llamas on what is approximately a once-per-game occurrence.
Perhaps it's not religiosity, but education. Generally, the more educated women there are, the fewer babies there are. (This is an assumption; it would be great to see an analysis.)
It's interesting to compare a theocratic Muslim nation such as Iran to the Taliban. Both are Muslim; the latter denies women education; the former relatively encourages it. The former has 2.14 births per woman; the later 4.47.
Which is why I say such things are often cultural rather than religious.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
That poll and the IPSOS poll earlier continue to spell disaster for the Union. In a decade of arguably very bad political decisions, the election of Jeremy Corbyn by Labour or Jo Swinson by the LDs might be right up there but they pale into insignificance beside the selection of Laschet as CDU/CSU Spitzenkandidat over Soder.
Forsa has Soder ahead of Scholz as preferred Chancellor 39-22 but Soder isn't on the paper for the Union. We saw plenty of hypothetical polling in the spring showing a Union led by Soder polling in the mid-30s if not higher.
It's an open secret Soder and the CSU are livid at what has happened.
Another country voting this autumn is Iceland which also goes to the polls at the end of September (on the 25th). The latest Gallup poll:
Changes from 2017 election (*= party in the Governing coalition)
The current Government has 33 of the 63 seats in the Althing but you'd have to think the poor performance of the Left-Green Movement leaves that majority in jeopardy.
It's hard however to see any Government being formed which doesn't include Independence - a coalition with Progressive and Reform might be the outcome.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
You must be furious about speed limits, mandatory seat belts, and the requirement to drive on the left. Think of all the freedoms that are taken away! Not to mention mandatory taxation. The health and safety executive. Banking regulation. TV licenses...
--AS
What about my cherished freedom to own weapons grade fissile material? What is life without a Christie core in the fruit basket in the living room?
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
And you still pretend you're not an antivaxxer 😂
As for how many jabs I will take: as many as are required.
As for being a second class citizen: good! If someone's civil liberties are to be restricted I'd far rather it be yours than mine.
You lose all moral rights to complain about lockdowns if you won't do the ONLY thing that makes lockdowns unnecessary. Anyone antilockdown should be the first in line for their jabs.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Only if you see 'death' as freedom for a substantial number of people ...
Vaccinated people can easily both get and pass on covid. Protection, as it is becoming increasingly clear, wanes after a few months.
Not easily. They possibly can but it's not easily.
Some unvaccinated people have had delta covid. The ONS shows that reinfection in these cases, and thus therefore the ability to pass covid on, is very low.
It would make far more sense, surely, to make antibody testing the yardstick, rather than vaccination? does it really matter how you acquire your protection?
Delta covid has only been around for eight months. It's only been common enough to be named as a subvariant for three or four months. Not really enough time for the smaller subset of unvaccinated people to get it twice.
I therefore treat your claim with suspicion. Do you have linkies to it, please?
And antibodies aren't the only way the body defeats Covid. The immune system is much more complex than that...
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
You must be furious about speed limits, mandatory seat belts, and the requirement to drive on the left. Think of all the freedoms that are taken away! Not to mention mandatory taxation. The health and safety executive. Banking regulation. TV licenses...
--AS
What about my cherished freedom to own weapons grade fissile material? What is life without a Christie core in the fruit basket in the living room?
"there’s a long association between peddlers of quack medicine and right-wing extremists."
"We’re seeing a surge in sales of — and poisoning by — ivermectin, which is usually used to deworm livestock but has recently been touted on social media and Fox News as a Covid cure."
Using the sources *you* selected, here is a scatter chart of birth rates against religiosity for the fifteen largest European countries.
Using your own data sources, it literally shows exactly the opposite of what you claim. Higher religiosity correlates with lower birthrates.
Edit to add: that dot in the top right, that's Romania that is. You took the single biggest outlier, and claimed it was trend.
Which is irrelevant as every one of the 15 largest European countries have a religiosity rate below the global average and a birthrate below replacement rate.
The bottom nation by birthrate ie South Korea at 0.8, has only 43% of their population saying religion is important to them
So, you're saying that data doesn't matter, unless it happens to agree with you.
Got it.
Have you scatter plotted the world and run a linear regression? If not, you are literally just making up numbers and claiming they match your existing views.
Yes quite clearly you are.
You completely ignore the fact the largest growth in global population is in Africa with over 90% religiosity generally and instead compare the largest 15 European nations which are all largely secular and generally under 50% religiosity and all in population decline.
There is not a single European nation in the top 50 who say religion is important to them and there is not a single European nation in the top 50 by birthrate either
You also seem to have completely missed what the original discussion was, so busy are you in moving the goal posts.
Shall I remind you?
We were talking birth rates. And you said for birth rates to rise (and we were talking about the DEVELOPED world), we'd need to see a rise in religiosity.
And yet, in the developed world, there is (let's be generous here) no correlation between religiosity and birth rates.
So you're now bringing in African birth rates.
Do you think that:
(a) High African birthrates are the result of education and poverty or (b) The result of them believing in God
Both surely.
Well, it's easy to find out.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
If your freedom depends on getting it, isn't that an argument in favour of getting it? Could you talk us through the advantages of a grossly circumscribed life in the UK, an absolute cessation of foreign travel and an increased risk of illness and death?
Once you accept that your freedom is conditional, and not your right, more conditions will be added, and not just to do with coronavirus. The bar will consistently be raised.
You really can't see this? pity.
You must be furious about speed limits, mandatory seat belts, and the requirement to drive on the left. Think of all the freedoms that are taken away! Not to mention mandatory taxation. The health and safety executive. Banking regulation. TV licenses...
--AS
What about my cherished freedom to own weapons grade fissile material? What is life without a Christie core in the fruit basket in the living room?
PB pedantry: Christy.
But surely it's then a levitated pit?
That's a very solid point. Or maybe 92 points. Just to be safe.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Though as a psychological matter at some point societies like UK are going to make a shift from 'crisis mode' to 'this how life is so how do we normalise it'. I think this will happen between about now and the middle of next year, as we have all had enough of permanent crisis mode.
What will life look like if permanence is that Covid is one more disease that people get, and many die from, just like many die from other causes? I think we shall have to get there soon.
I think it won't be just my ICU and respiratory ward colleagues that get fed up with so much health resource being consumed by anti-vaxxers.
It is a factor in why Mrs Foxy and her colleagues won't accept redeployment to ICU again. What they see there is so unnecessary and self inflicted.
Can i ask, are you also fed up with so much health resources being consumed by teenagers who are so obese they need joint operations? or get Type 2 diabetes when they otherwise wouldn't?
People are, well, fallible aren't they? And some people who are un vaccinated have had and recovered from covid. They are no threat to anybody.
You have a point about people who don't look after themselves. There's an immense amount of hypocrisy - including amongst many very fat healthcare professionals - abroad in the land amongst people who went out on their doorsteps and banged their pots and pans for the NHS, whilst simultaneously carting around a massive flab belt.
Millions and millions of people genuflect ritually before the altar of the NHS, yet won't take basic measures to prevent themselves from burdening it unnecessarily: if the whole population ate reasonably healthily and did a sufficient amount of exercise (and it's hardly as if one need be a vegan iron man triathlete to avoid becoming Monsieur or Madame Creosote: there is no need to tax sugar or outlaw chocolate,) then only a very modest number of disabled people and people with metabolic conditions would be overweight. The British healthcare system could then do a far more effective job for the same amount of money, to the general benefit of everyone.
The specific problem with some communicable diseases like Covid is, of course, that they spread, and if they spread enough to overwhelm the healthcare system then we either have to go without healthcare or do drastic things to control the disease, which was the entire rationale behind these God awful lockdowns that we had to suffer. If a morbidly obese person wobbles down the street than they don't transmit morbid obesity about the town until hundreds of morbidly obese people per day are having coronaries all at once and clogging up intensive care units. If people with Covid go about town infecting everyone else then it's a different kettle of fish.
Vaccines are the solution to dampening both the transmissibility and the severity of Covid, to the point at which the disease is incapable of crippling the healthcare system and we can then go back to normal life - but this process is entirely dependent on a sufficient fraction of the population accepting the vaccines. If there are enough refusers in the population that the vaccines cannot do their job then we are in real trouble. I fail to see what is difficult to comprehend about this concept.
Would be interesting to know if the (admittedly rare) side effects from the jabs are still happening for 3rd jabs. If they were, I could understand the scientists' reluctance...
Out of interest, how many jabs are you prepared to take before you say feck this for a game of soldiers?
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
On the contrary (sic) freedom is dependent on being vaccinated. Returning to normal life requires it.
Freedom based on vaccination will not be a 'return' to anything. It certainly won't be a return to normal life.
Why? I happily get a flu jab every year. Vaccines don't impinge on my freedom one iota. Brexit on the other hand has several times. Should we stop that? Please ignore the last 2 sentences as we can't go there
Whilst being massively pro vaccination, I am also massively anti vaccine passports.
I don't get the flu jab. Never have done.
Do you think I shouldn't be able to go to cinemas?
No of course you can go. In fact I only get it because it is given to me for free now I don't think I am particularly at risk being fit.
Just making the point that getting a vaccine does not impinge on ones freedom at all.
Comments
The reason there is no correlation between religiosity and birth rates in the western and developed world is virtually all of it, bar maybe the US, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Austria and Italy is now majority secular with less than 50% saying religion is important to them.
To get to the far higher birthrates we used to have we would need to match the 80 to 90%+ religiosity of Africa and parts of South Asia and the Middle East, no major European nation is near that now.
Yes high birthrates in Africa are partly a product of believing in God and believing strongly in religion and the community it brings.
Look too at Israel, which has a high 3.01 fertility rate for a developed nation (even above the 2.4 global average fertility rate), driven largely by the high birthrate amongst its Orthodox Jewish population. 51% of the Israeli population also say religion is important to them.
Africans also eat more bananas than we do. Would that be a possible route to raising our birthrate?
https://endpts.com/breaking-in-a-major-blow-to-vaccine-efforts-senior-fda-leaders-stepping-down-report/
So you accept in principle it is good to have animals which we then kill but you are applying some kind of Nick Palmer scale of suffering to determine which ones.
Sounds impractical and illogical.
a) a McDonald's franchise
b) the McDonald's brand
c) the McDonald's logo
d) nothing of McDonald's
Replace McDonald's with NFT.
My favourite curry is still a lamb dopiaza.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU
Which Unai and Arteta don't possess for all their flair.
Do you understand the concept of controlling for variables in statistical analysis?
Let me give you an example. Some people say that "Leave" voters in the EU referendum were less well educated, and less likely to have college degrees. If you looked at the data in more detail, it turned out that it wasn't that they were particularly poorly educated, it was simply that propensity to vote Leave increased with age. And - in the old days - fewer people went to college. For any particular cohort (say 50+ year olds), the difference in Leave/Remain according to level of education was much less stark.
If one genuinely wants to understand the influence of religiosity on birth rates, one would seek to control for other factors. So, you would look at countries that - other than religiosity - were very similar, to make sure you're not measuring something else. Like, for example, education levels or income or availability of healthcare.
You also don't cherry pick, finding one country that adheres to your views and ignoring all the evidence that does not support it. So, you look at 20 similar countries, and see what trends you see. And you let the data do the talking. If there's no correlation, there's no correlation.
Africa is very much in that lag time which is why population numbers have been rising so quickly.
Unai Emery had won three European trophies in the run up to becoming Arsenal manager.
That's gravitas and authority right there.
Because he couldn't speak English fluently as Wenger or a Klopp people took the piss out of him.
Let's look at African countries with similar GDP per head, and see if religiosity and birth rate correlate.
It's not rocket science.
(Of course, there's almost certainly a correlation between religiosity and GDP per capita. Not one that @HYUFD would care to highlight, mind.)
Anyone can cherry pick the data - it would be easy enough to say that Thailand, for example, has very high religiosity, and very low birth rate.
It seems to me that there are more likely explanations for the patterns on birth rates than religion, and Robert's stats tend to support that.
Indeed, even to the extent they are linked, it may simply be via a common third factor. For example, in grindingly poor countries with poor healthcare and tiny welfare states, children are often people's pension plan (and they may lose some along the way). Whereas in the developed world, they are a net cost to the parents - a luxury good. The same may explain a desire to believe in a higher power - that the suffering of life isn't in vain. This is consistent with Robert's stats which illustrate, when you control (albeit imperfectly) for how developed a country is by looking at just fairly similar, reasonably well off countries, religiosity ceases to be a predictor of higher birth rate (and possibly becomes the reverse).
If all seriousness, i can actually see a use for NFTs for certain digital assets, especially if you are going to claim royalties.....but not millions for a pixel avatar.
Because, possibly, your freedom will depend on it. Some of us are preparing ourselves to become second class citizens already.
If you don't get the booster, that could be you too.
Hence much of the increase in population of Sub Saharan Africa is baked in.
My cat died and I didn't replace it. It ate more meat than I do.
Would make the basis of a very good thread header as far too frequently misconceptions and misunderstanding of data pervert people's analysis.
I don't get this fixation on restrictions based on vaccinations as being qualitatively different than other restrictions on our freedoms we so happily accept that we don't even notice them.
The correlation only really kicks in at religiosity rates above 90% I will concede that but it is clearly there once the vast majority of the population are religious. Hence every nation with above 90% of the population saying religion is important to them has a well above average birthrate.
Or in the case of Israel because a significant segment of the population ie Orthodox Jews are very religious and hence make a large contribution to pushing up the nation's birthrate
What will life look like if permanence is that Covid is one more disease that people get, and many die from, just like many die from other causes? I think we shall have to get there soon.
You really can't see this? pity.
Rory Burns is poised to be named as England’s vice-captain for Thursday’s fourth Test against India at his home ground of the Oval.
The Surrey batsman is expected to replace Jos Buttler in the role, with the keeper-batsman missing this Test due to the imminent birth of his second child. He is also expected to miss the fifth Test at Old Trafford, which begins on Sep 10.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/08/31/chris-woakes-ready-return-england-side-ahead-oval-test-india/
Bairstow or Ali should be vice captain ahead of Burns.
It's like the MOT test, isn't it? We thought it would stop with having our cars checked for roadworthiness once a year. Now we have the weekly electric toothbrush inspection, the monthly audits of our lawnmowers. And only you saw it coming.
Let's remember that @hyufd is more closely involved in the messy business of electoral politics than most of us- even here. And electoral politics isn't an entirely rational process. Sometimes it is about advocacy and "what data can I extract that points in the direction that my instincts- or the instincts of my voters- want?" rather than "what's objectively best?" If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have the government we currently have.
(A certain kind of religious thinking probably does correlate with having lots of babies, partly because that's what God is said to want. Mostly because those in charge prefer it that way, and haven't moved on from a world where number of people =power. Religion in Europe, even in places with lots of religion, even when that religion looks pretty conservative, is pretty liberal in the grand scheme of things.)
The problem isn't eating meat. It's the *amount* of meat we eat.
Traditionally, meat was a scarcity for many cultures. Vegetables/fruit were much more common. A little bit of meat with a lot of vegetables gives us what we need.
Instead, many of us eat a lot of meat with a few, if any, vegetables or fruit. As an extreme, I had a colleague who called himself a 'meatarian': he would return food at the pub if it came with any vegetables.
Campaigns (and there are some) to east *less* meat, rather than berating us as evil for eating any meat, might gain better traction and allow better animal welfare.
I think @HYUFD is making another error in addition. It is not the average religiosity that matters, it is the religiosity of fertile females that likely matters. Hence there can be a very fertile religious minority in a largely secular country that masks the overall low fertility of secular society there.
I would argue that communities where only the older people are religious have a lower birthrate than those where the young are. Obviously in most MENA countries there is a young mean population too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
A US study has also shown that Jews, Hindus and members of the Episcopal Church for example all have average incomes not only above the US average but above that for atheists and agnostics too
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
Or does being undeveloped lead to both higher birth rates and higher religiosity?
You're reversing cause and effect.
Go on somebody, explain Iran.
They might well be, or have more experience at such a role, but I don't know how any of us can relaly know who is best placed for such a role. Same reason fans usually think the best player should be captain, even if being the best player is no certain indicator of being a good captain.
SPD 23%
CDU/CSU 21%
Greens 18%
FDP 12%
AfD 11%
Left 6%
Oth 9%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Just received word that Alpacastan has declared war on Tory Britain!!
In addition meat is a very strong flavour that dominates the palate. As well as being healthier, a diet with much less meat is also one with a wider range of tastes.
I don't get the flu jab. Never have done.
Do you think I shouldn't be able to go to cinemas?
Bairstow I think captained the England age groups.
In Africa however plenty of under 40s of motherhood or fatherhood age are very religious.
While the churches of Europe tend to be filled with over 60s even in the most religious European nations (except for the charismatic evangelical ones which have an above average black congregation anyway), the churches of Africa are filled with those in their 20s or 30s
It is a factor in why Mrs Foxy and her colleagues won't accept redeployment to ICU again. What they see there is so unnecessary and self inflicted.
As for how many jabs I will take: as many as are required.
As for being a second class citizen: good! If someone's civil liberties are to be restricted I'd far rather it be yours than mine.
You lose all moral rights to complain about lockdowns if you won't do the ONLY thing that makes lockdowns unnecessary. Anyone antilockdown should be the first in line for their jabs.
ETA - actually, that’s rather unfair. More a lack of religiosity masked by the fact that unpleasant things happen to apostates.
Meanwhile, from the World Bank, total fertility rates for groups of countries, classified by income:
High income: 1.6
Upper middle income: 1.8
Middle income: 2.3
Lower middle income: 2.7
Low income: 4.6
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=false
The relationship between fertility rate, wealth and religiosity varies from country to country according to the unique circumstances of each, but a consistent direct relationship between religiosity and fertility rate doesn't exist. The main determinant of fertility rate is female access to education, economic opportunities and contraception, and these factors all go hand-in-hand with development, not the prevalence of God bothering.
For the unvaccinated it is easy.
Booster jabs keep protection high. Protection from prior infection wanes too.
I do wonder how much evolution has had to do with this. Meat was rare compared to vegetables and fruit, but good for us. Therefore we are more attracted to meat.
Now that meat is much more available (and this has really only been in the last hundred years, if that), it is a problem.
I think of all the rich people in Victorian times who were fat; a victim of the over-availability of food and meat?
(I might be wrong in this, but gout is often caused by eating too much meat. In French, 'gout' means taste.)
People are, well, fallible aren't they? And some people who are un vaccinated have had and recovered from covid. They are no threat to anybody.
Finding a better, cheaper and more easily delivered treatment is surely the silver bullet now that Covid has become endemic.
--AS
"In 1975 just four years before the Revolution, fewer than 30% of Iranian women were literate. In 2015 that number was over 80%, nearly on par with male literacy. In 1977 the country had 16 universities with 154 000 undergraduate students. Today, Iran has 51 state universities and potentially as many as 354 private higher education institutions, increasing the number of students enrolled from 1.3 million in 1999 to 4.7 million in 2014. Over the past decade, women in higher education institutions have constituted at least 50% of the population, and 60% of those who passed the national examination for university entrance were women."
Iran has quite a problem of graduate unemployment, particularly for females. It does seem that it is female education, not employment that reduces fertility.
It would make far more sense, surely, to make antibody testing the yardstick, rather than vaccination? does it really matter how you acquire your protection?
It's interesting to compare a theocratic Muslim nation such as Iran to the Taliban. Both are Muslim; the latter denies women education; the former relatively encourages it. The former has 2.14 births per woman; the later 4.47.
Which is why I say such things are often cultural rather than religious.
Forsa has Soder ahead of Scholz as preferred Chancellor 39-22 but Soder isn't on the paper for the Union. We saw plenty of hypothetical polling in the spring showing a Union led by Soder polling in the mid-30s if not higher.
It's an open secret Soder and the CSU are livid at what has happened.
Another country voting this autumn is Iceland which also goes to the polls at the end of September (on the 25th). The latest Gallup poll:
Changes from 2017 election (*= party in the Governing coalition)
Independence Party*: 24.2% (-1)
Left-Green*: 12.3% (-4.6)
Social Democrats: 11.5% (-0.6)
Pirate Party: 10.9% (+1.7)
Reform Party: 10.6% (+3.9)
Progressive Party*: 9.7% (-1)
Icelandic Socialist Party: 8.2% (+8.2)
Centre Party: 7.0% (-3.9)
People's Party: 4.9% (-2)
The current Government has 33 of the 63 seats in the Althing but you'd have to think the poor performance of the Left-Green Movement leaves that majority in jeopardy.
It's hard however to see any Government being formed which doesn't include Independence - a coalition with Progressive and Reform might be the outcome.
I therefore treat your claim with suspicion. Do you have linkies to it, please?
And antibodies aren't the only way the body defeats Covid. The immune system is much more complex than that...
But surely it's then a levitated pit?
"We’re seeing a surge in sales of — and poisoning by — ivermectin, which is usually used to deworm livestock but has recently been touted on social media and Fox News as a Covid cure."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/opinion/covid-misinformation-supplements.html
Millions and millions of people genuflect ritually before the altar of the NHS, yet won't take basic measures to prevent themselves from burdening it unnecessarily: if the whole population ate reasonably healthily and did a sufficient amount of exercise (and it's hardly as if one need be a vegan iron man triathlete to avoid becoming Monsieur or Madame Creosote: there is no need to tax sugar or outlaw chocolate,) then only a very modest number of disabled people and people with metabolic conditions would be overweight. The British healthcare system could then do a far more effective job for the same amount of money, to the general benefit of everyone.
The specific problem with some communicable diseases like Covid is, of course, that they spread, and if they spread enough to overwhelm the healthcare system then we either have to go without healthcare or do drastic things to control the disease, which was the entire rationale behind these God awful lockdowns that we had to suffer. If a morbidly obese person wobbles down the street than they don't transmit morbid obesity about the town until hundreds of morbidly obese people per day are having coronaries all at once and clogging up intensive care units. If people with Covid go about town infecting everyone else then it's a different kettle of fish.
Vaccines are the solution to dampening both the transmissibility and the severity of Covid, to the point at which the disease is incapable of crippling the healthcare system and we can then go back to normal life - but this process is entirely dependent on a sufficient fraction of the population accepting the vaccines. If there are enough refusers in the population that the vaccines cannot do their job then we are in real trouble. I fail to see what is difficult to comprehend about this concept.
Just making the point that getting a vaccine does not impinge on ones freedom at all.