This is why the Tories are set to get hammered – politicalbetting.com

Farooq said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

Rayleigh, perhaps some Lincolnshire seats. Borders.

Was interesting to see when you put the average of current polling into Baxter the three safest Tory seats, and 6 or 7 of the Top Ten are in Scotland.

Some of the safest electoral calc seats look like stone cold LD gains to me

Beyond question of utility or otherwise of various polls > seats calculations, is it possible, that some voters are starting to respond based NOT on which party they support the most, but instead on which party they are (at least thinking about) voting for in their local constituency?

For example, my UK doppelganger is a Labour AND Starmer supporter BUT lives in constituency where Lib Dem has best short (it appears today) to take out Tory incumbent.

When polled, is his response re: voting intention Labour? OR Liberal Democrat?

Seems to me they could logically go either way - fielder's choice.

Ideologically I'm closest to the Lib Dems (but "supporter" is going too far).
My constituency is Conservative-held, with SNP second:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banff_and_Buchan_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Last election I voted Lib Dem. This time, I'm still not sure, but currently leaning towards SNP. For me, the equation has changed from "vote for what best matches your core belief sets" to "get the fucking Tories out right now".

I can't say for sure it'll stay that way, and given the SNP's problems it might emerge that there's a better alternative for shifting Duguid out. So I'll wait and see. But in your "fielder's choice" scenario, I find myself fielding a little differently compared to four years ago.

Are any pollster asking, perhaps as follow-up, "In your own local constituency, for whom would you vote?" or something similar (exact formulation of words of course very important as with 99.46% of poll questions)?

Nigelb said:

Audible gasps at #ADA2023 as Phase II data for $LLY GGG agonist retatrutide shows up to 24.2% weight loss at 48 weeks in obese & overweight patients without diabetes. 100% of patients at top 2 doses met threshold of 5% or greater weight loss. Nearly half lost 1/4 of body weight.
https://twitter.com/ScripMandy/status/1673451979547488256

Remarkable results.

Possible side effect concerns, though.

Does it just work by blocking addictive behaviour?

Andy_JS said:

"Former prime minister Liz Truss has called on the government to have a plan in place in case the Russian government under Vladimir Putin collapses."

https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-calls-for-uk-to-have-plan-if-russia-collapses-after-wagner-mutiny-12910004

There are *seven* living former PMs. Times be weird

geoffw said:

I would do away with emojis too

Miklosvar said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Lab leak debunked then, I see.

Not really; rather the certainty, and some of the previously bruited reasons for it, have been exploded.
Either hypothesis remains possible.

The claim is "there's no direct evidence." Which is bollocks because there's no direct evidence of most things. Lots of murderers are convicted without direct evidence and lab leaks are even more problematic - you could hardly have cctv or eyewitness evidence of one occurring

Anyway it's all relative - the evidence does not have to be that good, it just needs to be better than that for competing theories

Except it's not better.
The problem for lab leak proponents is that they've had several different theories, and each time a particular claim is debunked (eg "furin cleavage site doesn't exist in wild coronaviruses" - since discovered), they just move on to another, without letting that modify their belief.

"Lots of murders are solved..." is an awful comparison, since here you're trying to say that one occurred before you have the evidence for it.

edmundintokyo said:

It's not that, it's the failure of every Tory government since 2010 to reform it to work less like Soviet Russia and more like the system in every other developed country except America. They knew it needed doing, they wanted to do it, the voters knew they wanted to do it, and they didn't do it.

Actually, that's not quite true. The Lansley reforms, for instance, were an attempt to shove the NHS in that direction. But they had various internal contradictions, in particular trying to make market forces work in a system in state ownership and without the profit motive, and so, despite some achievements, largely failed.

And then of course there was the disatrous reaction to the pandemic, which many people said that the time would cripple healthcare in the country for a generation, but which the government successfully terrified voters into supporting.

@Mike - I hope your op was a success.

The graph certainly is striking. Perhaps the FT will back Labour in the next GE as they backed Blair. (They were neutral in 2019.) Labour look likely to run on improving the state health service as their big promise, and on the inability of Tory incompetents to measure up.

But the Conservatives remain a formidable force. They will have immigration and what is essentially white pride as their big thing. Crowds have short memories. Imagine if they link cutting the Gordian knot of immigration with improving state health provision in some surprising way. Not talking about the past, but talking about the future. Never mind that the surprising way will only last about five minutes. If it involves vans with hoardings on the side and guys and gals in medical and nursing uniforms, it will have an impact. Where does that leave Labour? The Tories will say sure we all want to improve the state health system but only the Tories can pay for it. Translated into what that means emotionally for the petty bourgeoisie, that means let those working class member of the public f*ckers suffer physical pain and die young because that's all they're good for, the lazy scrounging lard-arsed Aldi shoppers who eat baked beans while they're watching television every day and then wonder why they get ill. For the "red wall", i.e. northern proletarians who back in the distant past voted Labour, it means blame the blacks and immigrants of course.

The main point being that while it seems intellectually that the Tories have no answer to that graph, elections aren't fought on intellectual terrain.

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

@Leon - you are right about likes. They are indeed badges for inadequate morons.

Dislikes are interesting too. It was instructive how they poured in against me when I corrected rcs1000 on an arithmetical point and although he eventually saw that I was right he was insisting for the moment that I wasn't. Fans rarely change their minds about anything. They're too stupid. Shoot the mad dog. Whoop whoop whoop.

At the same time, you yourself sometimes display an unusual amount of yearning for approval.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

IMO everyone should take a moment today to read about + celebrate the life of John Goodenough:

- Served in WW2
- PhD with Enrico Fermi
- in his 30's, helped create RAM
- At 58, invented Lithium-Ion batteries
- At 97, oldest Nobel laureate ever
- Lived to 100, almost 101

RIP to a great man with the best last name any engineer should aspire to
https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1673363453598400512

ping said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

For the sake of balance shouldn't there be a Dislike button?

Just get rid of the “like” button altogether, imo.

+1

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

Andy_JS said:

"Former prime minister Liz Truss has called on the government to have a plan in place in case the Russian government under Vladimir Putin collapses."

https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-calls-for-uk-to-have-plan-if-russia-collapses-after-wagner-mutiny-12910004

There are *seven* living former PMs. Times be weird

Could easily be eight before the next election.

It will almost certainly be at least eight after it.

Dura_Ace said:

Andy_JS said:

"Former prime minister Liz Truss has called on the government to have a plan in place in case the Russian government under Vladimir Putin collapses."

https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-calls-for-uk-to-have-plan-if-russia-collapses-after-wagner-mutiny-12910004

What the fuck is she expecting Sunak to do about nuclear armed Yugoslavia x 10? Another five point plan? Linkedin post?

People do seem remarkably optimistic about the possible collapse of the Russian state.

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

Perhaps, as a matter of policy, we should all grow up and stop chasing cheap 'likes.'

If you agree, like this post to show your approval and send a message.

How do you chase a "like" please

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

Perhaps, as a matter of policy, we should all grow up and stop chasing cheap 'likes.'

If you agree, like this post to show your approval and send a message.

How do you chase a "like" please

In your case, threaten to bombard us with ballistic turnips.

Incidentally looks like Leon was wrong and the like button is popular.

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

Perhaps, as a matter of policy, we should all grow up and stop chasing cheap 'likes.'

If you agree, like this post to show your approval and send a message.

How do you chase a "like" please

In your case, threaten to bombard us with ballistic turnips.

Incidentally looks like Leon was wrong and the like button is popular.

What Like button?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

Really? I use the like button, where someone has responded to one of my posts, to thank that poster and say that I've read his or her reply, even if I do not disagree with it. More people should use this system rather than the banal "thanks" or the even worse ding-dong type debates about how many people go to which church in which corner of the anglosphere. Honestly, who cares, unless you are going into the hymn book business? It is this sort of repetitive to-and-fro argument that ruins pb imo and if the like button helps avoid it, that is surely worthwhile. It is the flashed headlights of pb. It means whatever you take it to mean.

ETA and often I use it to mean that I do like a post.

I never ever gave it a thought before other than to give a like when I thought post was good, but see I have over 5K , do I get a badge or certificate or something.

Well done Donald. It’s really smart to be recorded saying you have a load of documents you haven’t declassified.

Trump heard on CNN tape discussing secret documents
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66027036

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

End of a stressful day. Needed to clear my father's house fast as the new owners want to complete asap and I don't want to cause any delays so I haven't replied to any comments from the last thread so:

@Mortimer - Thank you for your kind post. Appreciated. My dad died aged 96 in February. Just the selling of the house now, which has suddenly turned manic.

@Stuartinromford - I agree completely with your post re maths and eventually everyone hits the buffers in the end, it is just a matter of when. Definitely happened to me. If I had my time again I would do a joint degree of maths with economics or philosophy to put off hitting the maths buffers.

@HYUFD - Thanks for the link re philosophy degree & logic questions. I'm interested but the link didn't work - Page not found. One thing to note (and I say this without having read the link) is the logic you do in a maths degree is far more advanced than stuff you do in a philosophy degree (or in particular questions they may set in an interview) by the nature of the prerequisites. In fact the notation itself will be gibberish without the previous preparation. That is not to say a question set in an interview will not be as difficult, it might in fact be more difficult. There are plenty of everyday logic questions I can't do that an untrained but clever person can do, but which doesn't involve complex logic. And as you know, I don't have a logic degree (I don't even know if such a thing exists), but said it as a riposte to @Miklosvar, although my specialist subjects in my 2nd & 3rd year of maths were all logic topics.

@TheScreamingEagles - I enjoyed your post on deciding your degree/career.

@DecrepiterJohnL - Your post about many Doctors regretting their choice and moving to other careers. I agree. They are often talented in several areas and it follows from my argument of going down the science line first and then wishing they had done something they had more passion for. For most of us we do a degree, and move on, but for a Doctor it is a career. There are so many in the public eye who are ex-Doctors doing non doctoring stuff. My wife (a doctor) often feels the same.

@Miklosvar - You are an arse. When you first appeared on PB I had a pointless pedantic exchange with you and decided to avoid you. Today I made a half serious comment for comic effect that was at the expense of historians/lawyers and people like @TheScreamingEagles and @ydoethur respond accordingly, in fun. You on the other hand responded appallingly, as you nearly always do. I've noticed you have done this with others. With @kinabalu for instance. And your reaction and jumping to the wrong conclusion when I politely said I had to leave for a few hours, but would reply on my return, was an example. Would you have preferred it if I had been rude and just ignored you.

You're rude, pedantic, irrational, and tangential. You appear to be an exceedingly unpleasant person. Not bad going for someone who has only made a few hundred posts.

That being said, he is funnier than you

Are you all right @Leon? That is not up to your usual standard. Even when I disagree with you I still really enjoy your prose; but that?

I wasn't trying to be clever, or witty, or indeed anything - simply pointing out a relevant truth you had carelessly omitted in your 19 paragraph Screed of Tedium

You mean that tedium that has got more likes than any of your posts for the last few days. Just saying.

The definition of Tragedy is: adding up your likes

This is why I asked @rcs1000 to remove the LIKE button. Likes encourage cant, and banal emotion, and the herd mentality, and sad, crowdpleasing drivel, they are scout badges for inadequate morons, but, you know, well done

Perhaps, as a matter of policy, we should all grow up and stop chasing cheap 'likes.'

If you agree, like this post to show your approval and send a message.

How do you chase a "like" please

In your case, threaten to bombard us with ballistic turnips.

Incidentally looks like Leon was wrong and the like button is popular.

It's only popular in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

WTF? I think ‘awesome’ is way worse than ‘like.’ So twee.

Sorted that for you.

And I can’t even like it 🙁

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

WTF!

Can I just say that I like the Like button. And emojis.

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Also, the benefits of screening mammography are fairly marginal.

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

You radical.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Can I just say that I like the Like button. And emojis.

+1

bondegezou said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Also, the benefits of screening mammography are fairly marginal.

Anecdotal only I appreciate, but it saved my wife on her very first routine screening. No symptoms.

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

It would raise the average standard of cricket at Lord’s though.

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

A sad day in the annals of taking Leon seriously.

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

It's the "off topic" that you really wanted rid of.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

I agree, third rate dumps like Harrow and Oxford need their moment in the sun.

Got to say the only thing replacing the like button with a wtf button is going to do is to highlight how batshit crazy most of HUYFD’s posts are.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

I agree, third rate dumps like Harrow and Oxford need their moment in the sun.

It is also hardly private schools fault most state schools prefer to play football than cricket even in the summer.

Children prefer football, it doesn’t require pitches to be prepared and doesn’t require more equipment.

Heck most schools switched to softball for the reasons above 20 odd years ago

You will note that cricket is dying in the West Indies because basketball require less equipment and less space.

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

👍👍👍👍

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

Please put it back. The new "wtf" button does not make sense. It makes it difficult to react to a post and makes interacting with a post unpleasant. If a poster announces a death in the family or another unpleasant life life event, as many do these days, I now no longer have a way to courteously react. Please stop this WTF, it is a silly change that makes the site unpleasant.

Peter_the_Punter said:

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

Seriously, Robert, that's a mistake.

I often use the like button as an acknowledge or to show agreement when I haven't the time to post.

Please put it back.

+1 - I like posts that are interesting that don’t need replies to - it’s a means of saying thanks / interesting / I laughed without polluting the thread with a comment.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

I agree, third rate dumps like Harrow and Oxford need their moment in the sun.

It is also hardly private schools fault most state schools prefer to play football than cricket even in the summer.

Children prefer football, it doesn’t require pitches to be prepared and doesn’t require more equipment.
Baseball overtook cricket during the US Civil War for the same reasons.

Heck most schools switched to softball for the reasons above 20 odd years ago

You will note that cricket is dying in the West Indies because basketball require less equipment and less space.

Baseball overtook cricket during the US Civil War for similar reasons.

For those who recall the 80s series Brass, HYUFD sometimes reminds me of George Fairchild, assiduously defending a privilege he will never share.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

👍👍👍👍

👎👎👎👎👎👎

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

I agree, third rate dumps like Harrow and Oxford need their moment in the sun.

It is also hardly private schools fault most state schools prefer to play football than cricket even in the summer.

Children prefer football, it doesn’t require pitches to be prepared and doesn’t require more equipment.

Heck most schools switched to softball for the reasons above 20 odd years ago

You will note that cricket is dying in the West Indies because basketball require less equipment and less space.

No, it is because they took cricket off free terrestrial telly where it was replaced by US college basketball. Turns out kids copy what they see on screen.

kjh said:

bondegezou said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Also, the benefits of screening mammography are fairly marginal.

Anecdotal only I appreciate, but it saved my wife on her very first routine screening. No symptoms.

I’m very glad your wife is well.

What is the counter-factual here? There are two possibilities for what would have happened without screening. First case: she would have experienced symptoms at some point and sought help. She then would have been treated. Probably, she would have had the same outcome. Breast cancer treatments have (thankfully) improved greatly over the years, so the benefits of an earlier diagnosis have shrunk. Obviously, even if the number of women were early diagnosis makes a difference is small, if you’re one of that group, it really matters!

Second case: the tumour wouldn’t have done anything, she never would have had symptoms. We know screening picks up cases that would never develop into something of import. We just can’t tell which cases those are.

So, lots of women are diagnosed outwith screening. Some are diagnosed through screening, but the benefit of an earlier detection is small because treatments are better. Meanwhile, over-diagnosis from screening is a definite problem. There are, of course, costs to a screening programme: both in terms of money that could be spent on other approaches (more education for what symptoms to look out for) and in terms of exposure to ionising radiation (screening mammography involves 4 X-rays). There is a debate in the literature about the precise benefits and costs. The current UK position is that the benefits do outweigh the costs, but I think most researchers accept that it’s close.

Is there anything that can be done to improve screening mammography? AI is getting better at interpreting mammograms. The false negative rate is very low already, but that could be made lower. There’s the possibility of reducing the big false positive rate. It will also cut the cost if we can move away from the current double reading system (every mammogram independently looked at by two professionals). Lower dose X-rays are a possibility. On the flip side, treatments for breast cancer (thankfully) keep getting better, which erode the benefit of early diagnosis.

Morning everyone.

The US Senator Marco Rubio says that David Grusch is not the only one who has testified that the U.S. is in possesion of non-human technology.

https://twitter.com/StandForBetter/status/1673515200107151360

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Lab leak debunked then, I see.

Not really; rather the certainty, and some of the previously bruited reasons for it, have been exploded.
Either hypothesis remains possible.

The notable thing about the latest U.S. Intelligence report on potential links between WIV and the COVID 19 epidemic is that it doesn't give any real reason to believe there was a lab leak. None of the known viruses the lab was working on was close to Covid 19; researchers at the Institute fell appear to have fallen ill from normal seasonal diseases.

Unless the DNI is withholding information, you wouldn't actually believe from the report there was a lab leak, rather than the species jump that is the origin of every single other epidemic, if the lab leak narrative hadn't already taken hold.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2023/item/2393-odni-releases-report-on-the-potential-links-between-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology-and-the-origin-of-covid-19

Nigelb said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

English cricket stands accused of being racist, sexist and elitist at its core in a damning report that immediately forced an unreserved apology from authorities.

In its landmark 316-page review, the Independent Commission for Equity in Cricket demands “urgent reform” while laying bare deep-rooted discrimination across the game.

The England and Wales Cricket Board, which is found to be “unfit for purpose” in tackling discrimination complaints, accepts the findings will “shock and disappoint many”.

Among 44 separate recommendations for the ECB, the report took aim at the sport’s establishment, by finding:

Women have been abandoned as “second-class citizens”, routinely experiencing misogyny with “unequal access, pay and treatment”.

As a result, the ECB must oversee equal pay on average at domestic level by 2029 and international by 2030.

Dominance of private schools in cricket’s talent pathway plays a key role in determining “discriminatory outcomes across the game”.

On that basis, the MCC should scrap the annual fixtures between Eton and Harrow as well as Oxford and Cambridge at Lord’s.

Racism is “entrenched”, with 75 per cent of black and more than 80 per cent of Asian cricketers experiencing discrimination.

Cricket’s complaints systems are “confusing”, “overly defensive” and “not fit for purpose” for both victims and those accused.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/27/english-cricket-ecb-racist-sexist-elitist-report-commission/

Scrapping the Eton and Harrow and Oxford and Cambridge matches would be outrageous and do nothing to resolve any of the problems identified in the report anyway

I agree, third rate dumps like Harrow and Oxford need their moment in the sun.

It is also hardly private schools fault most state schools prefer to play football than cricket even in the summer.

Children prefer football, it doesn’t require pitches to be prepared and doesn’t require more equipment.

Heck most schools switched to softball for the reasons above 20 odd years ago

You will note that cricket is dying in the West Indies because basketball require less equipment and less space.

You need goalposts and pitches even to play football.

If West Indians prefer basketball to cricket that is also hardly evidence of 'institutional racism' in cricket either, by contrast in India cricket is still thriving and hugely popular

I didn’t say it was - it’s more evidence that the TV they got cones direct ...

Is cones direct their equivalent of the cones hotline ?

Comes direct - grr autocorrect can really screw a comment up

viewcode said:

rcs1000 said:

Ok you bastards.

I've removed "like".

Please put it back. The new "wtf" button does not make sense. It makes it difficult to react to a post and makes interacting with a post unpleasant. If a poster announces a death in the family or another unpleasant life life event, as many do these days, I now no longer have a way to courteously react. Please stop this WTF, it is a silly change that makes the site unpleasant.

You thought it was courteous to 'like' a post showing a death in the family?

That seems a bit odd.

I usually liked the first one saying 'condolences.' It said what I wanted to and saved multiple replies.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Punter, aye, and avoids the thread-clogging of just saying "I agree."

I agree!

bondegezou said:

kjh said:

bondegezou said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Also, the benefits of screening mammography are fairly marginal.

Anecdotal only I appreciate, but it saved my wife on her very first routine screening. No symptoms.

I’m very glad your wife is well.

What is the counter-factual here? There are two possibilities for what would have happened without screening. First case: she would have experienced symptoms at some point and sought help. She then would have been treated. Probably, she would have had the same outcome. Breast cancer treatments have (thankfully) improved greatly over the years, so the benefits of an earlier diagnosis have shrunk. Obviously, even if the number of women were early diagnosis makes a difference is small, if you’re one of that group, it really matters!

Second case: the tumour wouldn’t have done anything, she never would have had symptoms. We know screening picks up cases that would never develop into something of import. We just can’t tell which cases those are.

So, lots of women are diagnosed outwith screening. Some are diagnosed through screening, but the benefit of an earlier detection is small because treatments are better. Meanwhile, over-diagnosis from screening is a definite problem. There are, of course, costs to a screening programme: both in terms of money that could be spent on other approaches (more education for what symptoms to look out for) and in terms of exposure to ionising radiation (screening mammography involves 4 X-rays). There is a debate in the literature about the precise benefits and costs. The current UK position is that the benefits do outweigh the costs, but I think most researchers accept that it’s close.

Is there anything that can be done to improve screening mammography? AI is getting better at interpreting mammograms. The false negative rate is very low already, but that could be made lower. There’s the possibility of reducing the big false positive rate. It will also cut the cost if we can move away from the current double reading system (every mammogram independently looked at by two professionals). Lower dose X-rays are a possibility. On the flip side, treatments for breast cancer (thankfully) keep getting better, which erode the benefit of early diagnosis.

Agree with all of that.

bondegezou said:

kjh said:

bondegezou said:

Foxy said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Actually that chart shows little difference overall in NHS waiting times between recent Labour or Tory governments, except they were a bit lower under Labour in 2009-10 and are a bit higher under the Conservatives now (albeit Covid added to the problem).

Well done for going private though, the more higher income people take out private health insurance and use private hospitals, the less the pressure on the NHS. Best wishes for your recovery after your op.

I don't know where you learned maths but trebling is not "a bit" and being north of the worst in 30 years and accelerating is not "little difference".

Still, well done on congratulating OGH for going private, I am sure that has aided his recovery and eased the pain in his wallet no end.

What Australia does is charge higher income individuals a surcharge of 1% to 1.5% of income if they do not take out private health insurance.

The Tories should follow the example of the Coalition Howard government in Australia in 1997 which introduced that so more can follow the excellent example of OGH, go private and cut pressure on the NHS.

The Howard government in 1999 also contributed up to 30% of the private health insurance premium of people with their Medicare universal health coverage

Keir Starmer is actually praying they take this advice.

It would be the most brutal defeat of a governing, or recently governing, party since Baldwin managed to reduce Labour from 287 MPs to 50 in 1931.

It got the Howard government re elected.

There is little point being a Conservative if you don't pursue more conservative policies is there? Conservatives believe in choice in public services with private options too, in healthcare as much as anything else

I know the weather's been a bit warm recently, but I can assure you we are not in Australia.

Culturally we are probably closer to Australia than any other nation on earth except maybe New Zealand.

There is also no point the Tories fighting a battle on who will spend more on the NHS, as Labour will always win it as they are more willing to raise tax higher to pay for it.

The Tories should instead shift the argument to encouraging patient choice in healthcare too

Why not focus on something sensible like prevention education, or health surveillance monitoring before the medical event becomes out of control?

Everything this Government touches is reactive rather than proactive. Maybe there is more opportunity for grift in reaction rather than proaction.

Smokers and ex smokers 55 - 74 to receive cancer screening is a good decision

https://news.sky.com/story/smokers-and-ex-smokers-aged-55-74-to-be-offered-free-lung-cancer-screenings-12909605

On the other hand Susanna Reid explains mammogram screening is now by invitation to make an appointment rather than to attend a firm appointment.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/496313/gmb-susanna-reid-health-confession-sarah-ferguson-cancer-diagnosis/

There is a lot of debate in how to optimise participation for appointments. Open booked appointments are more flexible and tend to have better utilisation. Firm appointments do seem to work better with some subgroups.

Also, the benefits of screening mammography are fairly marginal.

Anecdotal only I appreciate, but it saved my wife on her very first routine screening. No symptoms.

...Is there anything that can be done to improve screening mammography? AI is getting better at interpreting mammograms. The false negative rate is very low already, but that could be made lower. There’s the possibility of reducing the big false positive rate. It will also cut the cost if we can move away from the current double reading system (every mammogram independently looked at by two professionals). Lower dose X-rays are a possibility. On the flip side, treatments for breast cancer (thankfully) keep getting better, which erode the benefit of early diagnosis.

The other wild card is molecular screening of blood samples to detect cancer signals.
The technology is in its infancy - and subject to the same caveats about unnecessary and possibly debilitating therapy in a large number of cases - but the NHS has already run one large scale trial, and there will be many more, as the technology becomes more discriminating.
For something like pancreatic cancer, where it's almost always too late for successful treatment once symptoms occur, it could be a game changer in a relatively short timeframe.