eadric said:

MarqueeMark said:

eadric said:

DavidL said:

eadric said:

fpt for Morris

It's potentially transformative, and almost all of the changes will be negative.

It could break China. Thend their health systems crack

4. Fuck.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1229385857892831233?s=20

The current assumptions are:
(1) that the draconian steps taken in China are working as shown by the 4 day trend in the reducing number of diagnosed cases.
(2) that the death rate outside China suggests 1% mortality way well prove to be pessimistic.
(3) that this will calm down in the summer months in the same way as SARS did.
(4) At the current rate of spread outside China we are likely to have a vaccine before this gets too serious.
(5) The Chinese economy has the capacity to bounce back very strongly once the panic is over.

Some or all of these assumptions may prove to be optimistic. I agree that it is surprising that it is not getting more attention.

Agreed. This may all disappear. Inshallah. But to address your points..

1. This implies that all countries will have to do what China is doing. Massive and oppressive quarantine. Will they be able, or willing?

2. Yes. But it could also be optimistic, we still don't even know the incubation period. It was thought to be 14 days. Now some say it could be a month.

3. Let's hope so

4. I read an estimate that a vaccine is 18 months away. Too long

5. Who knows?

ALSO, is the death toll accurate? Look at this video. I have no idea if it is "true". It purports to show the streets of Wuhan, with bodies in bags just lying on the pavement. If it IS real it is horrifying. And even if it isn't, there are enough scary videos out there to make anyone quail. They can't all be fake.

https://twitter.com/Amy78404357/status/1229404854084407303?s=20

That looked like at least 23 body bags in 30 seconds on just one street in a city the size of London.....

The kinder theory is that these are people sleeping, because they are locked out of their welded and quarantined homes. Who knows.

But then, look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaWWbS4clpU&feature=emb_logo

Seems authentic. Deeply disturbing. Again, who knows.

At least one of those - with trees covered in leaves - looks to have been taken at a different time of year to now.

MarqueeMark said:

eadric said:

DavidL said:

eadric said:

fpt for Morris

It's potentially transformative, and almost all of the changes will be negative.

It could break China. Thend their health systems crack

4. Fuck.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1229385857892831233?s=20

The current assumptions are:
(1) that the draconian steps taken in China are working as shown by the 4 day trend in the reducing number of diagnosed cases.
(2) that the death rate outside China suggests 1% mortality way well prove to be pessimistic.
(3) that this will calm down in the summer months in the same way as SARS did.
(4) At the current rate of spread outside China we are likely to have a vaccine before this gets too serious.
(5) The Chinese economy has the capacity to bounce back very strongly once the panic is over.

Some or all of these assumptions may prove to be optimistic. I agree that it is surprising that it is not getting more attention.

Agreed. This may all disappear. Inshallah. But to address your points..

1. This implies that all countries will have to do what China is doing. Massive and oppressive quarantine. Will they be able, or willing?

2. Yes. But it could also be optimistic, we still don't even know the incubation period. It was thought to be 14 days. Now some say it could be a month.

3. Let's hope so

4. I read an estimate that a vaccine is 18 months away. Too long

5. Who knows?

ALSO, is the death toll accurate? Look at this video. I have no idea if it is "true". It purports to show the streets of Wuhan, with bodies in bags just lying on the pavement. If it IS real it is horrifying. And even if it isn't, there are enough scary videos out there to make anyone quail. They can't all be fake.

https://twitter.com/Amy78404357/status/1229404854084407303?s=20

That looked like at least 23 body bags in 30 seconds on just one street in a city the size of London.....

Again, leaves on trees. Maybe that’s what happens in Wuhan in the winter, but we should be careful.

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Eugenics is foolish. Research into genetics today reveals that your 'code' is not engraved in stone - it can change during your life. Therefore it is pointless to try and find a set of what we think are perfect traits and replicate them. It is nutrition that matters - nutrition is the real key to health, not some silly blueprint.

It doesn't surprise me that Dawkins believes in it either, the man is a prize fool.

Hang on.

We know selective breeding works for other animals - the entire bloodstock industry would not exist without it. So why would you assume that it doesn't work for humans?

It works to accentuate certain of their characteristics. It doesn't work to make them healthier - often the opposite is true of selectively bred animals.

Animals experience hybrid vigour. Why not just encourage humans to inter-marry with other races and in general travel more widely and marry people from other countries?

It's been happening more and more. Also all couples should be allowed selective abortions because I think one in ~16 of us carry unpleasant genetic diseases that will shorten our life or reduce its quality (just one small example is retinitis pigmentosa which makes you almost blind by middle age).

Oh, what's that you say ... there was a vote in 2016 against freedom of movement ...?

Selective abortions only within the time limit of any other abortion

Canada allows abortion virtually on demand, though of course subject to medical approval. As a liberal democracy, we should seek to move that way.

Our abortion law is one of the most restrictive; at least, among protestant countries. David Steel was ahead of his time but he and other social liberals probably could only get the legislation through parliament in 1967 by making it that way.

Sabisky has resigned

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

(1) It does work for humans but it happens voluntarily (e.g. intelligent attractive people tend to marry each other creating intelligent attractive people) - this is one of the things that makes “social mobility” hard, and there’s not much you can do about it. In Western societies it’s broadly stable as most intelligent attractive people have 2.1 children.

(2) We’ve decided (rightly in my view) that whilst we could breed out some unhelpful genes and disabilities from humans selectively the ethics are utterly appalling and we’d far rather live with them and have a free society instead.

(3) A modern healthcare and welfare system largely makes both (1) and (2) feasible in delivering stable societies as we can support those who don’t have as strong an ability to succeed, as well as those who are disabled.

If it all totally broke down we wouldn’t be a million miles away from other species: the weak, ill and disabled would die, strong males would be naturally selected through fighting over land, resources and women, and strong women through survival (or not) through childbirth.

I'm sorry but in my opinion, whilst no doubt a widely held view, this is broadly nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.

Physical beauty - plentiful shiny hair, well developed facial bone structure in which teeth have plenty of space to hang evenly, healthy skin etc., is the hallmark of good health, and good health is the hallmark of good nutrition. Yes, it can be intra-generational to an extent, because the health the parents possess obviously becomes the building material of the next generation. But the nutrition the mother is passing on to the baby in the womb, in nursing, and the nutrition during childhood are added effects. This is obvious when you think about it. It is a strange belief in evolution that argues that there is a quotient of disease-vulnerable ugly troglodytes amongst us who have somehow performed every bit as well in natural selection as the healthy and beautiful ones.

All of us have evolved (or been created if you prefer) perfectly for our environment. It is up to us then to discover what we need to do for ourselves and for the next generation to enjoy great health, and all its side-benefits.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

My reading of your comments is that some people are simply genetically gifted, and that the race would be healthier if those people interbred and those less fortunate stayed celibate. I find that dangerous, because it is an argument between believing in eugenics, and believing in it but thinking it's unethical. That makes it almost inevitable that it will return to vogue.

I am saying that we *all* have the potential to be perfectly healthy, and produce 'perfect' offspring if we tend to our nutritional and other environmental factors.

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Jeff Bezos pledges $10bn to fight climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51539321

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Glad he's gone, but complaining that people are quoting you is a bit rich.

EPG said:

Why is SeanT allowed propagate fake news about the coronavirus on PB.com

Well, he does write fiction.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

(1) It does work for humans but it happens voluntarily (e.g. intelligent attractive people tend to marry each other creating intelligent attractive people) - this is one of the things that makes “social mobility” hard, and there’s not much you can do about it. In Western societies it’s broadly stable as most intelligent attractive people have 2.1 children.

(2) We’ve decided (rightly in my view) that whilst we could breed out some unhelpful genes and disabilities from humans selectively the ethics are utterly appalling and we’d far rather live with them and have a free society instead.

(3) A modern healthcare and welfare system largely makes both (1) and (2) feasible in delivering stable societies as we can support those who don’t have as strong an ability to succeed, as well as those who are disabled.

If it all totally broke down we wouldn’t be a million miles away from other species: the weak, ill and disabled would die, strong males would be naturally selected through fighting over land, resources and women, and strong women through survival (or not) through childbirth.

I'm sorry but in my opinion, whilst no doubt a widely held view, this is broadly nonsense, and dangerous nonsense.

Physical beauty - plentiful shiny hair, well developed facial bone structure in which teeth have plenty of space to hang evenly, healthy skin etc., is the hallmark of good health, and good health is the hallmark of good nutrition.

All of us have evolved (or been created if you prefer) perfectly for our environment. It is up to us then to discover what we need to do for ourselves and for the next generation to enjoy great health, and all its side-benefits.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

I am saying that we *all* have the potential to be perfectly healthy, and produce 'perfect' offspring if we tend to our nutritional and other environmental factors.

Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

logical_song said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Glad he's gone, but complaining that people are quoting you is a bit rich.

To be fair, there was some disgraceful selective quoting on here at the weekend.

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Up against Chelsea v Man Utd

Dead rubber that though. Liverpool have utterly ruined this season. It's one big yawn.

No, has to be the Labour leader debate if it's excitement you're looking for.

Far from it. Champions league qualification at stake for both clubs and others

Here’s something for @eadric to ponder:

https://twitter.com/thestalwart/status/1229495539655434241?s=21

Casino_Royale said:

Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1229496614584246273

Recycled old joke.

Monkeys said:

Long-Bailey a simpleton, Starmer a busted flush who's there to stop the simpleton, Nandy unfortunately has at least half a brain - this will put her at odds with the rest of the party.

RLB has made a strong start just now actually.

And c'mon Starmer is hardly a busted flush given he's about to become the leader of one of this country's great political parties.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.

I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.

kinabalu said:

Monkeys said:

Long-Bailey a simpleton, Starmer a busted flush who's there to stop the simpleton, Nandy unfortunately has at least half a brain - this will put her at odds with the rest of the party.

RLB has made a strong start just now actually.

And c'mon Starmer is hardly a busted flush given he's about to become the leader of one of this country's great political parties.

He's defected to the Liberals?!

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Another “win” for the online hate mob, which is all they care about.

Sadly this was entirely predictable, as people who have had Twitter accounts since they were teenagers now move into serious jobs.

This will end up with people changing their name on graduation, and deleting everything they ever wrote online, in case someone decides to come after them a decade later to try and get them fired.

These were not undergraduate ramblings. The one likening women’s sport to the Paralympics was from last year. He seems to have been charmless and gormless, and the wallow in self-pity as he heads for the exit is the mouldy icing on a very stale cake. No loss.

So none of the comments people disliked were from during his current employment with the government?

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1229496614584246273

Recycled old joke.

JokeCrime 1984

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Another “win” for the online hate mob, which is all they care about.

Sadly this was entirely predictable, as people who have had Twitter accounts since they were teenagers now move into serious jobs.

This will end up with people changing their name on graduation, and deleting everything they ever wrote online, in case someone decides to come after them a decade later to try and get them fired.

These were not undergraduate ramblings. The one likening women’s sport to the Paralympics was from last year. He seems to have been charmless and gormless, and the wallow in self-pity as he heads for the exit is the mouldy icing on a very stale cake. No loss.

So none of the comments people disliked were from during his current employment with the government?

I look forward to you applying such an exacting standard to Labour aides’ past. Do you really think you have managed to follow that approach previously?

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

matt said:

kinabalu said:

@Philip_Thompson

OK, we'll stop the 'dueling banjos' on theme tunes now. But let me leave you with a question -

No BBC. No more Tess Daly or Huw Edwards. No more water cooler moments from the likes of Andrew Neil and Monty Don. Everyone instead staring glassily at YouTube and Netflix, all doing their own atomized thing, barely able to communicate with each other because they have so little in common.

Is this the sort of society you want for your kids and grandkids?

Don't rush to answer. This merits more than an immediate bash bash bash of the keyboard and more of that tired old "Why should I pay for something I don't use?" shtick.

It's one for you to ponder at leisure.

If I might ask, what employment do you draw the conclusion that the BBC provides “water cooler moments”? In my experience, if that was ever the case it’s long gone.

Bodyguard, Night Manager, Dracula

And here we have the problem in one as to why the BBC is dying as an institution. What are its key successes?

Night Manager - 6 episodes made 4 years ago. Late Feb to late March 2016. Talk immediately of a second season but 4 years later that's still not happened left.

Bodyguard - 6 episodes two years ago. Late August to to late September 2018.

Dracula - 3 episodes this year. Spanning 3 days.

That's it? One good show, running over one month if we're lucky every couple of years? The Crown alone in the same timespan has had twice as many episodes as all that combined - and I think The Crown has been spoken about here more than those 3 put together.

That's certainly a good summary of the good BBC shows I've enjoyed over recent years.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

matt said:

kinabalu said:

@Philip_Thompson

OK, we'll stop the 'dueling banjos' on theme tunes now. But let me leave you with a question -

No BBC. No more Tess Daly or Huw Edwards. No more water cooler moments from the likes of Andrew Neil and Monty Don. Everyone instead staring glassily at YouTube and Netflix, all doing their own atomized thing, barely able to communicate with each other because they have so little in common.

Is this the sort of society you want for your kids and grandkids?

Don't rush to answer. This merits more than an immediate bash bash bash of the keyboard and more of that tired old "Why should I pay for something I don't use?" shtick.

It's one for you to ponder at leisure.

If I might ask, what employment do you draw the conclusion that the BBC provides “water cooler moments”? In my experience, if that was ever the case it’s long gone.

Bodyguard, Night Manager, Dracula

And here we have the problem in one as to why the BBC is dying as an institution. What are its key successes?

Night Manager - 6 episodes made 4 years ago. Late Feb to late March 2016. Talk immediately of a second season but 4 years later that's still not happened left.

Bodyguard - 6 episodes two years ago. Late August to to late September 2018.

Dracula - 3 episodes this year. Spanning 3 days.

That's it? One good show, running over one month if we're lucky every couple of years? The Crown alone in the same timespan has had twice as many episodes as all that combined - and I think The Crown has been spoken about here more than those 3 put together.

Killing Eve was also very popular. They've had some not too bad dramas over the past few years. Undoubtedly some stinkers too.

Which do people remember as the stinkers? Jamaica Inn was a notorious mumbleathon, but that was May 2015.

NEW THREAD

Second question of Labour leadership contendors is about Fleck? FFS.....

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSabisky/status/1229490716847460352

Another “win” for the online hate mob, which is all they care about.

Sadly this was entirely predictable, as people who have had Twitter accounts since they were teenagers now move into serious jobs.

This will end up with people changing their name on graduation, and deleting everything they ever wrote online, in case someone decides to come after them a decade later to try and get them fired.

These were not undergraduate ramblings. The one likening women’s sport to the Paralympics was from last year. He seems to have been charmless and gormless, and the wallow in self-pity as he heads for the exit is the mouldy icing on a very stale cake. No loss.

So none of the comments people disliked were from during his current employment with the government?

I look forward to you applying such an exacting standard to Labour aides’ past. Do you really think you have managed to follow that approach previously?

I’d like to think I’ve been quite consistent on this, certainly with regard to those who are not holding elected office. The old Jeremy Corbyn stuff was all from when he was already an MP.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RobD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.

I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.

Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.

Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sabisky has resigned

About bloody time.

Disagree, he should never have been appointed. He stands as a monument to Cummings’ stupidity, arrogance and atrocious judgment.

kinabalu said:

Monkeys said:

Long-Bailey a simpleton, Starmer a busted flush who's there to stop the simpleton, Nandy unfortunately has at least half a brain - this will put her at odds with the rest of the party.

RLB has made a strong start just now actually.

And c'mon Starmer is hardly a busted flush given he's about to become the leader of one of this country's great political parties.

Long Bailey has looked almost as ridiculous as her hero Corbyn. On her accession as Leader of the Opposition she will take the Party down the same dead end as Corbyn took us.

Starmer's chance only arrived after Corbyn sacked or expelled the biggest beasts in the Labour Party. I can live with him but feel there is more on offer from the back benches or former MPs now with the Liberal Democrats.

Watching the Man U game. Crossed my mind that if Covid19 does get established here we may not be able to finish the EPL season. Which would be terribly sad, of course.

kinabalu said:

Fleabag and Mum are Beeb. Great for comedy in fact right from the old days through to today. Office. Fawlty. Partridge. Morecambe and Wise. Goons. Python. Cook and Moore. Flanagan and Allen. Chaplin. Keaton. Arbuckle. And many many more. It's an incredible litany of laughs through the ages. Let's not stop laughing now.

#lovethebeeb

If you love the BBC, - you are welcome to it, spend your own money supporting it and your time watching it.

What I object to is your/their determination to put me in prison, for watching one of there competitors without simultaneously being forced to pay for something I detest.

#stopthetellytaxnow.

HYUFD said:

matt said:

kinabalu said:

@Philip_Thompson

OK, we'll stop the 'dueling banjos' on theme tunes now. But let me leave you with a question -

No BBC. No more Tess Daly or Huw Edwards. No more water cooler moments from the likes of Andrew Neil and Monty Don. Everyone instead staring glassily at YouTube and Netflix, all doing their own atomized thing, barely able to communicate with each other because they have so little in common.

Is this the sort of society you want for your kids and grandkids?

Don't rush to answer. This merits more than an immediate bash bash bash of the keyboard and more of that tired old "Why should I pay for something I don't use?" shtick.

It's one for you to ponder at leisure.

If I might ask, what employment do you draw the conclusion that the BBC provides “water cooler moments”? In my experience, if that was ever the case it’s long gone.

Bodyguard, Night Manager, Dracula

Strictly. Mrs Brown's Boys.

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sabisky has resigned

About bloody time.

Disagree, he should never have been appointed. He stands as a monument to Cummings’ stupidity, arrogance and atrocious judgment.

I wholly disagreed with Sabisky over his dreadful racial stereotyping and misogynistic ramblings.

His analysis of multi generational social security recipients and their enormous families was by and large accurate. His remedy might have been somewhat flawed in its presentation, but something has to be done about this uncontrolled drain of government finances.

Sabisky may have fallen on his sword, nonetheless Boris can't ignore the issue highlighted by Sabisky. Boris must deal with this urgently as he knows more than most that uncontrolled procreation causes significant social and financial problems.

eadric said:

TimT said:

eadric said:

TimT said:

IshmaelZ said:

TimT said:

eadric said:

TimT said:

Who is taking it seriously? No-one I know who does this for a living - on either the epidemiology or the security side of the house.

* This being the idea it is manmade and escaped from the Wuhan lab

Where is the epidemiological cluster that leads back only to the lab and those working in it or living near it?

If there were such a cluster would you expect anyone outside China to know about it?

Yes, (and Ironaviruses AND then starting vaccine production before there is evidence that it has made the species jump.

This is mainly why I like PB. Smart, better-informed people like you who educate me. Thankyou. Your reasoning seems valid and the lab theory somewhat less so.

That said, I still think coronavirus is potentially fucking scary. The fact we are even discussing the cancellation of the Olympics is a measure of that.

I have a buddy in Hong Kong doing training for Reuters staff. My wife (not that it was an option) would not have let me go.

No way I would go to East Asia right now. Why take the risk? If you come back with an innocent sniffle, you are in quarantine for 14 days. I've already experienced much of that.

Unpacking that slightly loose comment, there are two related angles. The first is whether or not you are at risk of catching Coronavirus if you travel to 'East Asia'. If by the rather esoteric terminology you're referring to China and Hong Kong then the chances are obviously higher on the mainland. Generally at the moment you're no more likely to catch coronavirus in SE Asia than you are in Brighton or London. Usual precautions apply: probably wear a mask in certain situations, wash your hands especially before putting them anywhere near your face.

But I guess you're really referring to the other angle, namely the 'risk' of being put in quarantine. It's fair to say that you're only put in quarantine if you present with symptoms and fess up to where you've been. If you're prepared to take the risk that the sniffle you picked up whilst getting up close and personal to that Thai girl in Soi Cowboy (Sean T) is only a common cold then you can carry on your life. It's only if you turn out to have it that you'll be rather unpopular with your neighbours.

I'm not making light of the virus. It's serious stuff. But life goes on. I'm flying out to 'East Asia' this week and thoroughly looking forward to it.

DavidL said:

Watching the Man U game. Crossed my mind that if Covid19 does get established here we may not be able to finish the EPL season. Which would be terribly sad, of course.

The EPL isn't finished yet?