Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
There are lots of Nessy themed spots as I recall, but the 'best' place for sightings is Castle Urquhart
I drove up the other side of the loch and stopped at "Lochness View":
I stood by the loch and there were no boats or anything about and no wind. Out of nowhere about four or five quite big waves suddenly appeared and broke on the shore. I can see why people would have been spooked by that body of water.
We were caught in a squall in the middle of Loch Ness in our hired cabin cruiser and it was very rough
Fortunately both myself and my son ( now RNLI crew) knew how to steer to safety but it could be a scary exercise for anyone untrained
However @Darkage please do not be put off, the day boats are substantial and very safe
Really interesting thread on where we are with covid:
"exit to endemicity"
Ewan Birney @ewanbirney A COVID viewpoint from increasingly cold London. TL;DR the world vaccination situation is improving, but there is a long way to go; Europe is entering a winter exit to endemicity surge; the UK is a leading country in this exit surge with internal angst, strife and screw ups
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
There are lots of Nessy themed spots as I recall, but the 'best' place for sightings is Castle Urquhart
There's the exhibition centre at Drumnadrochit as well I think, although watching from the shore is much better. Apart from the classic site at Castle Urquart I find the S side of the loch much nicer. It is away from the busy A82 and thus much quieter for Nessie to lurk on. The Falls of Foyers are also worth a visit (2 or 3 mile walk), although they need a lot of water to be really impressive because the pumped hydro scheme reduces the flow.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
I would advise you that your son will be disappointed.
Yes, I would vote for the LR candidate in the first round and against all opponents in the presidential runoff, Macron against Le Pen and I would consider voting for Zemmour against Macron if I were French. Though of course I am not.
I would vote for LR in the legislative elections
As an aside, do you have a strong view on who the LR should choose as their Presidential candidate? Bertrand looks to have the strongest polling though he trails Le Pen and is still well below what Fillon managed last time.
Barnier and Pecresse don't look to be making much of an impact.
I'm struggling to see how the LR candidate gets into the top two - Fillon only just failed last time but the numbers look poor for both LR and the Socialists currently.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
There are lots of Nessy themed spots as I recall, but the 'best' place for sightings is Castle Urquhart
I drove up the other side of the loch and stopped at "Lochness View":
I stood by the loch and there were no boats or anything about and no wind. Out of nowhere about four or five quite big waves suddenly appeared and broke on the shore. I can see why people would have been spooked by that body of water.
We were caught in a squall in the middle of Loch Ness in our hired cabin cruiser and it was very rough
Fortunately both myself and my son ( now RNLI crew) knew how to steer to safety but it could be a scary exercise for anyone untrained
However @Darkage please do not be put off, the day boats are substantial and very safe
Yeah thanks BigG - I've looked in to the cruise. Brilliant idea and we're definetly going to go on one, weather permitting.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
There are lots of Nessy themed spots as I recall, but the 'best' place for sightings is Castle Urquhart
I drove up the other side of the loch and stopped at "Lochness View":
I stood by the loch and there were no boats or anything about and no wind. Out of nowhere about four or five quite big waves suddenly appeared and broke on the shore. I can see why people would have been spooked by that body of water.
We were caught in a squall in the middle of Loch Ness in our hired cabin cruiser and it was very rough
Fortunately both myself and my son ( now RNLI crew) knew how to steer to safety but it could be a scary exercise for anyone untrained
However @Darkage please do not be put off, the day boats are substantial and very safe
Yeah thanks BigG - I've looked in to the cruise. Brilliant idea and we're definetly going to go on one, weather permitting.
Very pleased to help
We are very familiar with the area and the loch cruise will give you all the information on Loch Ness, the monster and so much more
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
Yes, I would vote for the LR candidate in the first round and against all opponents in the presidential runoff, Macron against Le Pen and I would consider voting for Zemmour against Macron if I were French. Though of course I am not.
I would vote for LR in the legislative elections
As an aside, do you have a strong view on who the LR should choose as their Presidential candidate? Bertrand looks to have the strongest polling though he trails Le Pen and is still well below what Fillon managed last time.
Barnier and Pecresse don't look to be making much of an impact.
I'm struggling to see how the LR candidate gets into the top two - Fillon only just failed last time but the numbers look poor for both LR and the Socialists currently.
Bertrand polls better than Barnier certainly and Pecresse and the other LR candidates.
At the moment it looks like a Zemmour or Le Pen v Macron runoff, the LR will likely have to focus on the legislative elections
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
Yes, I would vote for the LR candidate in the first round and against all opponents in the presidential runoff, Macron against Le Pen and I would consider voting for Zemmour against Macron if I were French. Though of course I am not.
I would vote for LR in the legislative elections
As an aside, do you have a strong view on who the LR should choose as their Presidential candidate? Bertrand looks to have the strongest polling though he trails Le Pen and is still well below what Fillon managed last time.
Barnier and Pecresse don't look to be making much of an impact.
I'm struggling to see how the LR candidate gets into the top two - Fillon only just failed last time but the numbers look poor for both LR and the Socialists currently.
Bertrand polls better than Barnier certainly and Pecresse and the other LR candidates.
At the moment it looks like a Zemmour or Le Pen v Macron runoff, the LR will likely have to focus on the legislative elections
Aren't the legislative elections a few months later?
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
Yes, I would vote for the LR candidate in the first round and against all opponents in the presidential runoff, Macron against Le Pen and I would consider voting for Zemmour against Macron if I were French. Though of course I am not.
I would vote for LR in the legislative elections
As an aside, do you have a strong view on who the LR should choose as their Presidential candidate? Bertrand looks to have the strongest polling though he trails Le Pen and is still well below what Fillon managed last time.
Barnier and Pecresse don't look to be making much of an impact.
I'm struggling to see how the LR candidate gets into the top two - Fillon only just failed last time but the numbers look poor for both LR and the Socialists currently.
Bertrand polls better than Barnier certainly and Pecresse and the other LR candidates.
At the moment it looks like a Zemmour or Le Pen v Macron runoff, the LR will likely have to focus on the legislative elections
Aren't the legislative elections a few months later?
The legislative elections are just a month after the presidential elections in June, the presidential runoff is in May
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
With the greatest of respect, simply proclaiming that we are in big trouble doesn’t make it so. What has you so spooked? Cases? Give it two weeks and see where we are. I have huge sympathy for those on the front line of the NHS. It cannot be easy, and I’m glad I don’t have to work there. But there are other things that a country and its people need. They need to have fun, and go to work. The kids need schooling. We need sport with full stadia to cheer players on. Taxes need to be paid. Life goes on.
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
Germany: 1.5 million boosters UK: >5 million boosters
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
I would just say that I am sorry about your mental health , not least as my eldest son is seriously ill with PTSD, but I just do not see the need to panic over this
The schools are on half term and it is schoolchildren and the unvaccinated who are catching covid, and the stats show this is within HMG model and consistent with the change from a pandemic to endemic.
We will have to live with it as we do with flu with yearly vaccinations
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
Not a chance. There is no money for furlough, and no apetite. Once you have offered vaccines that’s it. People will not obey for the sake of idiots who refused to have the free vaccine.
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
Maybe not intentionally but the fact is Congress can elect the president under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers object to states' EC results and the constitution does not prohibit that.
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
Germany: 1.5 million boosters UK: >5 million boosters
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
Why should we have another lockdown? What will it achieve?
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
Why should we have another lockdown? What will it achieve?
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw absolutely no cars going in either direction or even parked by the road. I'm not sure you could do that now since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense, but still, that's pretty good for something labelled as an A road.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur. I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
With the greatest of respect, simply proclaiming that we are in big trouble doesn’t make it so. What has you so spooked? Cases? Give it two weeks and see where we are. I have huge sympathy for those on the front line of the NHS. It cannot be easy, and I’m glad I don’t have to work there. But there are other things that a country and its people need. They need to have fun, and go to work. The kids need schooling. We need sport with full stadia to cheer players on. Taxes need to be paid. Life goes on.
He’s not spooked. He just sees an opportunity to bash Boris.
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases. (Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Maybe if people properly wore masks, rather than having them dangling around their necks, then yes they might be a factor.
But then that's not necessarily a price worth paying, plus lower case rates right now is probably a bad thing.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Offer booster jabs for all yes, but the rest of it (including "plans") heck no. Absolutely not.
Anyone suggesting Plan B, or C, or anything else needs to be told where to jump.
And if antivaxxers get ill from Covid and die, that's their free choice. Personal responsibility should still exist.
Civil servants should absolutely be making these plans. Their job is to give ministers well thought through options to consider.
It’s then up to ministers to decide.
Wasn't it Michael Howard who said something along the line that whenever there was a terrorist outrage the Civil Servants would present a stack of options and it was the Home Secretary's job to put them all in the bin?
That should apply here. The Civil Servants absolutely can make whatever 'back up' plans they like, so long as they all end up in the bin.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
My eldest son regularly went to the Cairngorms as a professional snow border
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur. I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
Masks have disadvantages too, it's true. I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't. We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Offer booster jabs for all yes, but the rest of it (including "plans") heck no. Absolutely not.
Anyone suggesting Plan B, or C, or anything else needs to be told where to jump.
And if antivaxxers get ill from Covid and die, that's their free choice. Personal responsibility should still exist.
Civil servants should absolutely be making these plans. Their job is to give ministers well thought through options to consider.
It’s then up to ministers to decide.
Wasn't it Michael Howard who said something along the line that whenever there was a terrorist outrage the Civil Servants would present a stack of options and it was the Home Secretary's job to put them all in the bin?
That should apply here. The Civil Servants absolutely can make whatever 'back up' plans they like, so long as they all end up in the bin.
What I find interesting is that at the start of this there were fears that people wouldn't obey lockdowns for long. Those fears proved unfounded.
But I think we're now making the opposite mistake. There's absolutely no way the public will obey another lockdown.
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur. I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
Masks have disadvantages too, it's true. I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't. We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
Cheers, my son is in year 1 and on half term next week. Thanks for all the suggestions; much appreciated.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
My eldest son regularly went to the Cairngorms as a professional snow border
Must have been frustrating with the conditions at times - no snow, no work? They do say that if you can ski or board in Scottish conditions, you can ski or board anywhere.
As an aside, I could launch into a rant here about the incompetence of the Scottish government when it comes to running Cairngorm Mountain, but there's whole websites on the subject so it probably isn't worth the effort.
Suffice to say they managed to waste £25m or so installing a funicular, when it wasn't really the right thing for the job, and now it is costing upwards of £50m just to repair it due to "bad weather conditions". Bad weather conditions on Cairngorm? Never.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
Not sure how old your son is or if he is into military stuff but Fort George is very close to Inverness. Extensive fortifications and a regimental museum within. Worth half a day if it's his sort of thing.
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur. I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
Masks have disadvantages too, it's true. I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't. We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
There is like all things a balance to be had
I'm not going to reply to this thread any more because the quoting is all messed up and comments are coming under the wrong names.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
My eldest son regularly went to the Cairngorms as a professional snow border
Must have been frustrating with the conditions at times - no snow, no work? They do say that if you can ski or board in Scottish conditions, you can ski or board anywhere.
As an aside, I could launch into a rant here about the incompetence of the Scottish government when it comes to running Cairngorm Mountain, but there's whole websites on the subject so it probably isn't worth the effort.
Suffice to say they managed to waste £25m or so installing a funicular, when it wasn't really the right thing for the job, and now it is costing upwards of £50m just to repair it due to "bad weather conditions". Bad weather conditions on Cairngorm? Never.
To be honest he snowboarded across Europe the US and Canada and was celebrity snowboarder at Whistler
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
With the greatest of respect, simply proclaiming that we are in big trouble doesn’t make it so. What has you so spooked? Cases? Give it two weeks and see where we are. I have huge sympathy for those on the front line of the NHS. It cannot be easy, and I’m glad I don’t have to work there. But there are other things that a country and its people need. They need to have fun, and go to work. The kids need schooling. We need sport with full stadia to cheer players on. Taxes need to be paid. Life goes on.
He’s not spooked. He just sees an opportunity to bash Boris.
Fuck off you cunt.
A friend has just been admitted to hospital with COVID despite being double jabbed (and healthy) and I am very concerned about the virus again. I really don't want to catch it and I don't want any of the more vulnerable members of my family to catch it either.
I don't want a lockdown, the last two destroyed my mental health almost completely, I'm now seeing a counsellor because I can't cope. But I think it's inevitable as we have totally failed to get a grip on this. Labour have also been absent which has been totally unacceptable, they should be leading the conversation on bringing masks back and ensuring more jabs and protection for people.
You language is just unnecessary
Sorry to hear about your friend @CorrectHorseBattery but really, seriously, lockdown is not inevitable. It will be a choice by Johnson and Javid. Huge numbers are double vaxxed. The vulnerable have been offered the booster.
Apologies to interrupt the discussion; I have some Scotland related travel questions. I am spending 3 days in inverness with my wife and son; we have a hire car. Son wants to see the Loch Ness monster. I wondered if anyone who is familiar with that part of the world has any advice/suggestions? Would be much appreciated. Cheers.
If I had three nights in Inverness, I would do the train to Kyle of Lochalsh the first full day, then the train to Thurso & Wick the second day. (context: Been planning this since the first lockdown!)
But then, that's just me.
Lol. The train to Kyle is the one to do of course.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw ZERO cars going in either direction or even parked. Not sure you could do that now though since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense.
I think the point was that @darkage son wants to see Loch Ness
Yes, and I totally agree with the cruise idea. The question did say 3 days though...
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
Not sure how old your son is or if he is into military stuff but Fort George is very close to Inverness. Extensive fortifications and a regimental museum within. Worth half a day if it's his sort of thing.
Yes, Fort George is well worth a visit.
If you keep the binoculars from Loch Ness you can often see dolphins in the tidal channel there (although they are usually closer to Chanonry Point on the other side of the Firth).
We did a great job on the initial vaccine rollout but we've got complacent and now are in big trouble, the Government need to prioritise this and masks this week, we really are running out of time.
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
With the greatest of respect, simply proclaiming that we are in big trouble doesn’t make it so. What has you so spooked? Cases? Give it two weeks and see where we are. I have huge sympathy for those on the front line of the NHS. It cannot be easy, and I’m glad I don’t have to work there. But there are other things that a country and its people need. They need to have fun, and go to work. The kids need schooling. We need sport with full stadia to cheer players on. Taxes need to be paid. Life goes on.
He’s not spooked. He just sees an opportunity to bash Boris.
Fuck off you cunt.
A friend has just been admitted to hospital with COVID despite being double jabbed (and healthy) and I am very concerned about the virus again. I really don't want to catch it and I don't want any of the more vulnerable members of my family to catch it either.
I don't want a lockdown, the last two destroyed my mental health almost completely, I'm now seeing a counsellor because I can't cope. But I think it's inevitable as we have totally failed to get a grip on this. Labour have also been absent which has been totally unacceptable, they should be leading the conversation on bringing masks back and ensuring more jabs and protection for people.
The death rate is still far below where it was last year and earlier this year thankfully as most people are now double jabbed.
I agree though we need to extend boosters, get more young people vaccinated and consider vaccine passports too and masks in public spaces if required. What we must avoid is another lockdown
Good they're putting in place plans for COVID but we need to put in place booster jabs for all and mandatory masks this week, not wait any longer
Masks are not the panacea you think they are. Why are we not seeing a significant difference between England and the other three nations if masks are so vital?
Panacea is too strong a word, but masks work.
A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases.
(Ayodeji, O.J.; Ramkumar, S. Effectiveness of Face Coverings in Mitigating the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073666)
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur. I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
Masks have disadvantages too, it's true. I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't. We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
There is like all things a balance to be had
I'm not going to reply to this thread any more because the quoting is all messed up and comments are coming under the wrong names.
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 2m SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Chancellor to spend billions to digitise NHS #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
If it means I can finally set up and change my wife's hospital appointments using an online booking form* rather than waiting 45 mins on the phone for a call centre to deal with it, then Sunak gets the thumbs up from me.
* like any other business or organization in the 21st century.
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
Maybe not intentionally but the fact is Congress can elect the president under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers object to states' EC results and the constitution does not prohibit that.
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
You are a genuine fascist. You are openly advocating Congress uses a minor law to prevent fraud to overthrow the result of an election you don't like. Fascists have many tools to claim power and dismantle democracy. You are a disgrace to everything this country was built on.
At least this exchange (and the complete lack of condemnation from other conservatives on here) has shown me that my worries about British conservatism flirting with the far right are very justified. I was leaning Tory, but despite my concerns about Labour, I have now decided to vote for them in the next election. The Tories aren't fit to govern until they make clear people like you aren't welcome in their midsts.
Detaching this from the thread that got messed up and putting it as a standalone. I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
NEW: Officials taking soundings over Plan B this weekend.
@ObserverUK has learnt that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) contacted local authorities on Friday to canvass their level of support for the “immediate roll out of the Winter Plan – Plan B”.
The agency said it was urgently seeking the views of council chief executives and leaders to be fed directly into the cabinet office.
“This is a tight turnaround as you might appreciate and so a response by close of play would be really helpful,” it states.
A friend has just been admitted to hospital with COVID despite being double jabbed (and healthy) and I am very concerned about the virus again. I really don't want to catch it and I don't want any of the more vulnerable members of my family to catch it either.
I don't want a lockdown, the last two destroyed my mental health almost completely, I'm now seeing a counsellor because I can't cope. But I think it's inevitable as we have totally failed to get a grip on this. Labour have also been absent which has been totally unacceptable, they should be leading the conversation on bringing masks back and ensuring more jabs and protection for people.
I have no intentions of respecting any further lockdowns or restrictions. They can go jump.
Life is for living. Let the antivaxxers own their choices.
The scientists said at the start the public wouldn't remain locked down for long, they got that wrong but I've long ran out of patience with this bollocks. I'd rather 'let the bodies pile high' than have any more legal restrictions, this bullshit has to end.
The far-Right French firebrand tipped to become his country's new President has described the English as 'our greatest enemies for a thousand years' and attacked the D-Day landings.
D Mail
Oh dear. Zemmour is it? That's problematic for the British Right as they were rather warming to him over Frexit.
It was "a liberation but also occupation and colonisation by the Americans". Trump-style rhetoric - sounds scandalous so gets coverage, but he'll point to the "liberation" to deny being pro-German.
Some here also go on about the French being ancient enemies and seem to actively dislike them. It's a minority sport on both sides.
He's not, objectively, wrong though is he? The French and the English have, over the past 1000 years, been each other's greatest enemies. Doesn't mean we can't get along in the present but our past has been, er, fractious.
Hasn't it been over two hundred years since we fought the French?
We sank their navy at Mers el-Kebir in 1940
At that point the risk was that it was not "their" Navy, at a time when we could have ended up facing the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians *and* the French navies. Rather than the plan, which had been the Germans plus the Japanese.
And the Admiral in charge in Mers el-Kebir spent the day offended about status rather than talking to his Government about dealing with the crisis.
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
I'm not shy about disagreeing, but the thread has become pointless because you can't see who genuinely posted what. It's a discussion I would be happy to continue, but not when it looks like half of my comment was said by you and half of yours was said by me. Pretty soon someone will be accusing us of being the same person, and neither of us want that.
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
Maybe not intentionally but the fact is Congress can elect the president under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers object to states' EC results and the constitution does not prohibit that.
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
You are a genuine fascist. You are openly advocating Congress uses a minor law to prevent fraud to overthrow the result of an election you don't like. Fascists have many tools to claim power and dismantle democracy. You are a disgrace to everything this country was built on.
At least this exchange (and the complete lack of condemnation from other conservatives on here) has shown me that my worries about British conservatism flirting with the far right are very justified. I was leaning Tory, but despite my concerns about Labour, I have now decided to vote for them in the next election. The Tories aren't fit to govern until they make clear people like you aren't welcome in their midsts.
I thought I had
@HYUFD represents himself and is far from those of us who have been conservatives for long before he was born, though did vote Blair twice which according to the gospel of @HYUFD is an excommunication event
Detaching this from the thread that got messed up and putting it as a standalone. I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm." Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!" Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them. The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
All fair. I just don’t think we need them now. I’m pretty sure cases will be tumbling soon as we run out of kids who have not yet caught Covid. I also ask at what point we get to discard masks for good? I sense some want us to have them forever.
Trip into Manchester for lunch with daughters 1 and 2 today. The city was buzzing. Thousands of people out, engaged in what I can only assume was the very early stages of a massive night out. Virtually no masks in sight. We went in on the tram from Sale Water Park, which has already picked up traffic from Wythenshawe (bluntly, ex-council territory) - mask wearing less than 10%. As we progressed through Chorlton (Guardian and organic supermarket territory), mask wearing of new passengers well over 50%.
At the Tower today. Absolutely bumping. Tourists back in droves and a wedding at St Peter’s which was nice to see
I love that Brand Rishi has moved from the stylish signature selling boutique rosé wine experiences and into a new edgy franchise as a pop-up coffee kiosk in Shoreditch that recycles its used coffee grounds in ethical projects around the world https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/1451903485537095680/photo/1
The far-Right French firebrand tipped to become his country's new President has described the English as 'our greatest enemies for a thousand years' and attacked the D-Day landings.
D Mail
Oh dear. Zemmour is it? That's problematic for the British Right as they were rather warming to him over Frexit.
It was "a liberation but also occupation and colonisation by the Americans". Trump-style rhetoric - sounds scandalous so gets coverage, but he'll point to the "liberation" to deny being pro-German.
Some here also go on about the French being ancient enemies and seem to actively dislike them. It's a minority sport on both sides.
He's not, objectively, wrong though is he? The French and the English have, over the past 1000 years, been each other's greatest enemies. Doesn't mean we can't get along in the present but our past has been, er, fractious.
Hasn't it been over two hundred years since we fought the French?
We sank their navy at Mers el-Kebir in 1940
At that point the risk was that it was not "their" Navy, at a time when we could have ended up facing the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians *and* the French navies. Rather than the plan, which had been the Germans plus the Japanese.
And the Admiral in charge in Mers el-Kebir spent the day offended about status rather than talking to his Government about dealing with the crisis.
The "whole navy" is a little bit of an exaggeration. Only the battleship Bretagne and a tug-boat (yes a tug-boat!) were sunk outright that day.
Your obsession with me got the better of you there
You miss the point
Because it had problems before does not mean it will have in the future but your whole being is to attack Boris and HMG because you simply cannot come to terms with Brexit
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
Maybe not intentionally but the fact is Congress can elect the president under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers object to states' EC results and the constitution does not prohibit that.
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
You are a genuine fascist. You are openly advocating Congress uses a minor law to prevent fraud to overthrow the result of an election you don't like. Fascists have many tools to claim power and dismantle democracy. You are a disgrace to everything this country was built on.
At least this exchange (and the complete lack of condemnation from other conservatives on here) has shown me that my worries about British conservatism flirting with the far right are very justified. I was leaning Tory, but despite my concerns about Labour, I have now decided to vote for them in the next election. The Tories aren't fit to govern until they make clear people like you aren't welcome in their midsts.
You don't have a clue what Fascism means. The dictionary definition 'a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.'
I have not advocated anything. I have just pointed out that under the US Constitution the Electoral College NOT the popular vote elects the President and the Congress has to confirm the EC results before the President is elected and under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers of the elected Congress object to any states' results they can throw them out.
That is both legal and constitutional under the US system it is NOT Fascist on any definition.
Given the chances of you ever voting Tory are about 0 I could not care less if you vote for Starmer
I have no intentions of respecting any further lockdowns or restrictions. They can go jump.
Life is for living. Let the antivaxxers own their choices.
The scientists said at the start the public wouldn't remain locked down for long, they got that wrong but I've long ran out of patience with this bollocks. I'd rather 'let the bodies pile high' than have any more legal restrictions, this bullshit has to end.
I'm not doing lockdown again either. I'm done. This far and no further.
This is no longer being run as anything that resembles a holistic public health response. Another lockdown is a covid-only response rather than thinking about wider issues of mental health and so on. I am expecting Javid to have a wider more mature view of these matters than Hancock.
Shutting schools is an absolute no no in my book.
Some of the youngsters kids have lost a year of school at the massively crucial stage of 6 or 7 years old. Bonkers.
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
I'm not shy about disagreeing, but the thread has become pointless because you can't see who genuinely posted what. It's a discussion I would be happy to continue, but not when it looks like half of my comment was said by you and half of yours was said by me. Pretty soon someone will be accusing us of being the same person, and neither of us want that.
I think we will almost certainly end up in another kind of lockdown.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
Why should we have another lockdown? What will it achieve?
It’ll mean CHB can say ‘I told you so’...
He will say it if true or not. CHB tries to cosy up to.posters on here.. seen it all before.
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
I'm not shy about disagreeing, but the thread has become pointless because you can't see who genuinely posted what. It's a discussion I would be happy to continue, but not when it looks like half of my comment was said by you and half of yours was said by me. Pretty soon someone will be accusing us of being the same person, and neither of us want that.
Ironically it was you that broke the comments.
At 9:43pm you used the blockquote command to embed the line "A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases."
Using the blockquote command without also include the eg class="Quote" rel="Farooq" section of the command it normally uses works fine for creating an embed in your own post. But the moment anyone quotes that text the parsing of the commands gets buggered up.
Once your post gets quoted your "quote" gets terminated at the first /blockquote (which is meant to be for the embed) rather than for the second one where it belongs.
I recommend you avoid using the blockquote command for embeds. Italicise works much better instead for quotes.
EDIT PS this isn't a dig at you whatsoever, you weren't to know the coding is broken on that. But it is. In case you don't believe me, try quoting your 9:43pm comment and see what happens.
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
I'm not shy about disagreeing, but the thread has become pointless because you can't see who genuinely posted what. It's a discussion I would be happy to continue, but not when it looks like half of my comment was said by you and half of yours was said by me. Pretty soon someone will be accusing us of being the same person, and neither of us want that.
Ironically it was you that broke the comments.
At 9:43pm you used the blockquote command to embed the line "A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases."
Using the blockquote command without also include the eg class="Quote" rel="Farooq" section of the command it normally uses works fine for creating an embed in your own post. But the moment anyone quotes that text the parsing of the commands gets buggered up.
Once your post gets quoted your "quote" gets terminated at the first /blockquote (which is meant to be for the embed) rather than for the second one where it belongs.
I recommend you avoid using the blockquote command for embeds. Italicise works much better instead for quotes.
Good to know, thanks for the lesson. I won't be trying that little trick again.
(1) If the Republicans struggle at the mid-terms (i.e. lose the Senate outright *or* fail to gain the House), then Trump ceases to be a lock for the nomination. In this scenario, DeSantis (despite recent issues) has to be clear Republican favorite.
Isn't the mistake here to view the situation through political orthodoxy. Trump lost the last election. He lost the popular vote twice in a row. In the political orthodoxy that would mark him out as a big fat loser and he wouldn't have a hope in hell of the nomination. And to add to all that he is in compete denial of his defeat and provoked his supporters to storm the Capitol.
Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?
In the reality bubble inhabited by Trump supporters defeat is victory.
Though I suppose this argument is somewhat moot, given that the Democrats seem to be trying hard not to win the mid-terms.
"Why would the GOP under-performing in the mid-terms have any bearing on his nomination prospects?"
Main reasoning behind this hypothesis methinks, is that IF the Republicans do win back control of BOTH housed of Congress, then Trump will count on the GOP declaring him the winner regardless of the actual popular vote results as translated into electoral college votes.
Amazing how this is becoming a mainstream expectation - that America is about to junk democracy. I'm not there with it yet. My Overton window isn't quite that wide.
Even then it would not be junking democracy, just making the elected legislature elect the President. Actually no different to how Italy, Germany or India and South Africa already elect their Presidents and there is nothing in the US constitution to stop the Congress electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results
But those aren't the rules of the US constitution. And it would only be changed if the Republican lost. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt on here. But if you now become an apologist for the end of US democracy then you deserve to be called every name under the sun.
The rules of the US constitution simply state that Congress must affirm EC results and select the President and VP.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 allows both Chambers to object to states EC results, so if both the Senate and the House throw out the EC results of a number of key swing states for one candidate they can then make the opposing candidate the winner and elect them as winner of the EC.
That is not the end of democracy, as I said merely the elected House of Representatives and the elected Senate (remember it needs majorities of both to uphold EC objections) determining the President
You can try to legitimize the overturning of an election all you want but you are still justifying abandoning democracy. You are a fascist and an enemy of Anglo-American values.
It is not 'abandoning democracy', US voters also elect the Congress which there is nothing to stop electing the President if both chambers object to the EC results.
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
US voters did not elect Congress to choose a president. They choose a president in presidential elections. You are arguing for overturning that democratic result. You are a fascist. A fascist that tries to cloak his disgusting anti-freedom views in banal language, but a fascist nonetheless.
Maybe not intentionally but the fact is Congress can elect the president under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers object to states' EC results and the constitution does not prohibit that.
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
You are a genuine fascist. You are openly advocating Congress uses a minor law to prevent fraud to overthrow the result of an election you don't like. Fascists have many tools to claim power and dismantle democracy. You are a disgrace to everything this country was built on.
At least this exchange (and the complete lack of condemnation from other conservatives on here) has shown me that my worries about British conservatism flirting with the far right are very justified. I was leaning Tory, but despite my concerns about Labour, I have now decided to vote for them in the next election. The Tories aren't fit to govern until they make clear people like you aren't welcome in their midsts.
You don't have a clue what Fascism means. The dictionary definition 'a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.'
I have not advocated anything. I have just pointed out that under the US Constitution the Electoral College NOT the popular vote elects the President and the Congress has to confirm the EC results before the President is elected and under the Electoral Count 1887 if both chambers of the elected Congress object to any states' results they can throw them out.
That is both legal and constitutional under the US system it is NOT Fascist on any definition.
Given the chances of you ever voting Tory are about 0 I could not care less if you vote for Starmer
You seem to couldn't care less about a huge swath of the population
KotN says today is a day to celebrate and not a day for negativity as an important step in leveling up is proposed. The Government has listened.
SKS negative bollocks about the Government not having a serious plan.
Useless nonentity should look in the mirror.
Looks like Burnham has fucked off to the Tories with me!!
He is head and shoulders above SKS get him a seat quick and Labour still has a chance.
As I said Andy was very effusive about Rishi and many in labour may have been quite upset how far he went in complementing the investment in Greater Manchester
KotN says today is a day to celebrate and not a day for negativity as an important step in leveling up is proposed. The Government has listened.
SKS negative bollocks about the Government not having a serious plan.
Useless nonentity should look in the mirror.
Looks like Burnham has fucked off to the Tories with me!!
He is head and shoulders above SKS get him a seat quick and Labour still has a chance.
As I said Andy was very effusive about Rishi and many in labour may have been quite upset how far he went in complementing the investment in Greater Manchester
KotN says today is a day to celebrate and not a day for negativity as an important step in leveling up is proposed. The Government has listened.
SKS negative bollocks about the Government not having a serious plan.
Useless nonentity should look in the mirror.
Looks like Burnham has fucked off to the Tories with me!!
He is head and shoulders above SKS get him a seat quick and Labour still has a chance.
As I said Andy was very effusive about Rishi and many in labour may have been quite upset how far he went in complementing the investment in Greater Manchester
I've been out all day today, what did I miss?
He was on BBC really complimenting HMG for their investment in Greater Manchester and it is worth listening to on play back
He has completely undermined Labour attack as the response will come that Andy Burnham is delighted with the investment
Comments
Fortunately both myself and my son ( now RNLI crew) knew how to steer to safety but it could be a scary exercise for anyone untrained
However @Darkage please do not be put off, the day boats are substantial and very safe
"exit to endemicity"
Ewan Birney
@ewanbirney
A COVID viewpoint from increasingly cold London. TL;DR the world vaccination situation is improving, but there is a long way to go; Europe is entering a winter exit to endemicity surge; the UK is a leading country in this exit surge with internal angst, strife and screw ups
https://twitter.com/ewanbirney/status/1451945802646138887
You can go on a boat trip of course...
Barnier and Pecresse don't look to be making much of an impact.
I'm struggling to see how the LR candidate gets into the top two - Fillon only just failed last time but the numbers look poor for both LR and the Socialists currently.
We are very familiar with the area and the loch cruise will give you all the information on Loch Ness, the monster and so much more
Enjoy
May upset Labour supporters but @bigjohnowls wants him for Labour leader
Overthrowing democracy would be an army coup to make Trump President
At the moment it looks like a Zemmour or Le Pen v Macron runoff, the LR will likely have to focus on the legislative elections
"Under a potential “Plan C”, mixing with people from other households could also once again be banned, under measures that have been discussed by officials."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/23/get-booster-jab-save-christmas-britons-urged-country-faces-covid/
I will oppose that if they have not already tried facemasks and mandatory vaccine passports in large venues first
If I was to make a prediction, we will have stricter restrictions within the next couple of months, as yet again the Government will act too late. Sad but true, I suspect.
But then, that's just me.
But by all means use blackmail if it gets people vaccinated
Anyone suggesting Plan B, or C, or anything else needs to be told where to jump.
And if antivaxxers get ill from Covid and die, that's their free choice. Personal responsibility should still exist.
That's going to mess up the lives of so many and was clearly preventable but yet again the Government has not acted. The last two lockdowns have utterly destroyed my mental health and if one can be avoided then we must act now. But I fear we won't. I really do.
UK: >5 million boosters
The schools are on half term and it is schoolchildren and the unvaccinated who are catching covid, and the stats show this is within HMG model and consistent with the change from a pandemic to endemic.
We will have to live with it as we do with flu with yearly vaccinations
Indeed as I said in Italy, Germany, India and South Africa their legislature and parliament already elects their President not the voters directly. In the US too it is the EC which technically elects the President, not the popular vote directly as in France and the elected Congress confirms the validity of the EC results and who becomes President therefore.
If I was genuinely a fascist I would be advocating a military coup to make Trump President as still does occur in some Middle Eastern or African nations from time to time
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
But if you've paid for a hire car and want to come over all DuraAce and thrash it...
Inverness - Ullapool - Laxford Bridge - Lairg - Inverness
I once drove from Lairg to Laxford Bridge (a distance of about 40 miles) on a Saturday evening and saw absolutely no cars going in either direction or even parked by the road. I'm not sure you could do that now since the advent of the NC500 and all the associated nonsense, but still, that's pretty good for something labelled as an A road.
Infection transmission rates are driven by MANY factors, so just saying "yebbut Wales v England" really doesn't prove a thing. The point is that rates in England would certainly be lower if mask usage was more widespread.
Masks have uses for sure. The issue I have at the moment is that the vast bulk of cases is in the school kids. Having them reaching immunity (they must be close) now is helpful overall, and masks in kids is not great for teaching. Ask @Ydoethur.
I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
It’s then up to ministers to decide.
But then that's not necessarily a price worth paying, plus lower case rates right now is probably a bad thing.
Depends how old son is and what he's in to.
Me, I'd be heading for the Cairngorms or possibly the Fannaichs to have a play in the first winter snows (which arrived yesterday)
That should apply here. The Civil Servants absolutely can make whatever 'back up' plans they like, so long as they all end up in the bin.
I am expected to wear a mask at work in corridors, but many do not, including the students. I hate wearing it. Others see no issue, and that’s fine. I wear it in the supermarket, but about 50% of people do not.
I dont know why masks are so divisive but they are.
Masks have disadvantages too, it's true.
I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't.
We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
But I think we're now making the opposite mistake. There's absolutely no way the public will obey another lockdown.
I'm only answering the unscientific mask-sceptics who claim (usually when they really do know better) that they don't.
We can't have a rational debate about this in an environment when mask-Magas deny the science. And that's what they want, they want their ideology implemented despite, not because of, evidence.
There is like all things a balance to be had
Thanks for all the suggestions; much appreciated.
As an aside, I could launch into a rant here about the incompetence of the Scottish government when it comes to running Cairngorm Mountain, but there's whole websites on the subject so it probably isn't worth the effort.
Suffice to say they managed to waste £25m or so installing a funicular, when it wasn't really the right thing for the job, and now it is costing upwards of £50m just to repair it due to "bad weather conditions". Bad weather conditions on Cairngorm? Never.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1452017419334062084?s=20
I'm not going to reply to this thread any more because the quoting is all messed up and comments are coming under the wrong names.
Lockdown is now a political choice.
If you keep the binoculars from Loch Ness you can often see dolphins in the tidal channel there (although they are usually closer to Chanonry Point on the other side of the Firth).
I agree though we need to extend boosters, get more young people vaccinated and consider vaccine passports too and masks in public spaces if required. What we must avoid is another lockdown
Understandable but while we disagree quite a bit it is very much part of PB DNA to disagree
Neil Henderson
@hendopolis
·
2m
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Chancellor to spend billions to digitise NHS #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
If it means I can finally set up and change my wife's hospital appointments using an online booking form* rather than waiting 45 mins on the phone for a call centre to deal with it, then Sunak gets the thumbs up from me.
* like any other business or organization in the 21st century.
A previous government already gave Fujitsu billions to digitise the NHS. IIRC the project ended up in court...
At least this exchange (and the complete lack of condemnation from other conservatives on here) has shown me that my worries about British conservatism flirting with the far right are very justified. I was leaning Tory, but despite my concerns about Labour, I have now decided to vote for them in the next election. The Tories aren't fit to govern until they make clear people like you aren't welcome in their midsts.
I've been thinking about how to best explain why the "Wales / England, masks / maskless" comparisons don't work. It's a car analogy.
Person A: "Using winter tyres in the summer uses more petrol, so it's better to shift to summer tyres when it's warm."
Person B: "Ah-ha, but I'm using winter tyres here in Norfolk and you're using summer tyres there in Braemar, and my fuel efficiency is the same as yours! Therefore it makes no difference!"
Person A: "Yes, because I'm forever driving up steep hills, and you're not. It would be worse again for me if I was using winter tyres"
Obviously, this vignette also proves nothing, but try to keep it in mind when you think about bulk comparisons between two different places implementing different policies.
The claim is that masks lower infection rates compared to not using them.
The claim is NOT that masks make your infection rates lower than unmasked places.
It's a subtlety that can easily be lost in a debate, but it's a vital one for any system where multiple independent variables control a dependent variable (which is say basically everything in the real world).
@ObserverUK has learnt that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) contacted local authorities on Friday to canvass their level of support for the “immediate roll out of the Winter Plan – Plan B”.
The agency said it was urgently seeking the views of council chief executives and leaders to be fed directly into the cabinet office.
“This is a tight turnaround as you might appreciate and so a response by close of play would be really helpful,” it states.
Downing St is still hoping an accelerated booster jab campaign can avoid further measures. Here's what the UKHSA said tonight: https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/1452019665279012869/photo/1
Your obsession with me got the better of you there
@Charles sod off you prat
A friend has just been admitted to hospital with COVID despite being double jabbed (and healthy) and I am very concerned about the virus again. I really don't want to catch it and I don't want any of the more vulnerable members of my family to catch it either.
I don't want a lockdown, the last two destroyed my mental health almost completely, I'm now seeing a counsellor because I can't cope. But I think it's inevitable as we have totally failed to get a grip on this. Labour have also been absent which has been totally unacceptable, they should be leading the conversation on bringing masks back and ensuring more jabs and protection for people.
I have no intentions of respecting any further lockdowns or restrictions. They can go jump.
Life is for living. Let the antivaxxers own their choices.
The scientists said at the start the public wouldn't remain locked down for long, they got that wrong but I've long ran out of patience with this bollocks. I'd rather 'let the bodies pile high' than have any more legal restrictions, this bullshit has to end.
And the Admiral in charge in Mers el-Kebir spent the day offended about status rather than talking to his Government about dealing with the crisis.
It's a discussion I would be happy to continue, but not when it looks like half of my comment was said by you and half of yours was said by me. Pretty soon someone will be accusing us of being the same person, and neither of us want that.
@HYUFD represents himself and is far from those of us who have been conservatives for long before he was born, though did vote Blair twice which according to the gospel of @HYUFD is an excommunication event
Have you been treacherous again?
It should be easier now though as technology has moved on and lessons should have been learnt
Because it had problems before does not mean it will have in the future but your whole being is to attack Boris and HMG because you simply cannot come to terms with Brexit
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism
I have not advocated anything. I have just pointed out that under the US Constitution the Electoral College NOT the popular vote elects the President and the Congress has to confirm the EC results before the President is elected and under the Electoral Count Act 1887 if both chambers of the elected Congress object to any states' results they can throw them out.
That is both legal and constitutional under the US system it is NOT Fascist on any definition.
Given the chances of you ever voting Tory are about 0 I could not care less if you vote for Starmer
This is no longer being run as anything that resembles a holistic public health response. Another lockdown is a covid-only response rather than thinking about wider issues of mental health and so on. I am expecting Javid to have a wider
more mature view of these matters than Hancock.
Shutting schools is an absolute no no in my book.
Some of the youngsters kids have lost a year of school at the massively crucial stage of 6 or 7 years old. Bonkers.
At 9:43pm you used the blockquote command to embed the line "A statistically significant (p = 0.001) negative correlation (−0.54) was observed. The results highlighted the potential of community-wide wearing of face coverings in reducing the COVID-19 cases."
Using the blockquote command without also include the eg class="Quote" rel="Farooq" section of the command it normally uses works fine for creating an embed in your own post. But the moment anyone quotes that text the parsing of the commands gets buggered up.
Once your post gets quoted your "quote" gets terminated at the first /blockquote (which is meant to be for the embed) rather than for the second one where it belongs.
I recommend you avoid using the blockquote command for embeds. Italicise works much better instead for quotes.
EDIT PS this isn't a dig at you whatsoever, you weren't to know the coding is broken on that. But it is. In case you don't believe me, try quoting your 9:43pm comment and see what happens.
KotN says today is a day to celebrate and not a day for negativity as an important step in leveling up is proposed. The Government has listened.
SKS negative bollocks about the Government not having a serious plan.
Useless nonentity should look in the mirror.
Looks like Burnham has fucked off to the Tories with me!!
He is head and shoulders above SKS get him a seat quick and Labour still has a chance.
The future is Burnham or Johnson
SKS has no chance of winning.
You imagined it, then got upset about it, then posted about it.
Chill out.
Care less about what I write, man. You'll be happier, and live longer...
Except when my boss is paying for the after work beers.
There were a few too many cooks on both the implementation and the NHS side.
He has completely undermined Labour attack as the response will come that Andy Burnham is delighted with the investment