Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

A Biden ad featuring just a Trump speech – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,726
edited August 2023 in General
A Biden ad featuring just a Trump speech – politicalbetting.com

I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. pic.twitter.com/TuRZXPE5xK

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    edited August 2023
    FPT to preserve literally minutes of research

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even the Daily Mail are calling out the lazy parasitical Royals.

    I have no doubt if England’s men had reached the World Cup final, Prince William would be there

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12418955/AN-WILSON-England-World-Cup-Prince-William.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

    The Prince didn't go to the men's world cup in Qatar so why should he fly all the way to Australia for one football match and back? When you know full well you and your fellow republicans would criticise him for the emissions used
    I don't think you understand the nature of these competitions, HYUFD. Many countries compete in them, two of them make it to the final. In Qatar England was not one of those two. In Australia it is.

    HMQ was at Wembley in 1966. Her son and grandson are lazy, sexist poshos.
    Was the president of the Federal Republic of Germany?
    Heinrich Lübke.

    But - I would not be surprised if he didn't turn up, first because he wasn't a well man, and secondly because he was in the process of being unmasked as a Nazi collaborator having always posed as one of their victims (both true, incidentally).
    "German Chancellor Dr Ludwig Erhard who watched the match from his holiday bungalow in Bavaria sent a telegram to the German team, describing the match as a "great game" and thanking the players for their great service to German sport."

    https://www.theguardian.com/observer/englandfootball/story/0,9565,541570,00.html

    Argentina's President to watch World Cup final from home
    Read more At:
    https://www.aninews.in/news/world/others/argentinas-president-to-watch-world-cup-final-from-home20221218064450/

    Macron was in Qatar

    William does not have a real job, and is FA president. It also makes a difference that it's Australia, and it's the women.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    Miklosvar said:

    FPT to preserve literally minutes of research

    ydoethur said:

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even the Daily Mail are calling out the lazy parasitical Royals.

    I have no doubt if England’s men had reached the World Cup final, Prince William would be there

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12418955/AN-WILSON-England-World-Cup-Prince-William.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

    The Prince didn't go to the men's world cup in Qatar so why should he fly all the way to Australia for one football match and back? When you know full well you and your fellow republicans would criticise him for the emissions used
    I don't think you understand the nature of these competitions, HYUFD. Many countries compete in them, two of them make it to the final. In Qatar England was not one of those two. In Australia it is.

    HMQ was at Wembley in 1966. Her son and grandson are lazy, sexist poshos.
    Was the president of the Federal Republic of Germany?
    Heinrich Lübke.

    But - I would not be surprised if he didn't turn up, first because he wasn't a well man, and secondly because he was in the process of being unmasked as a Nazi collaborator having always posed as one of their victims (both true, incidentally).
    "German Chancellor Dr Ludwig Erhard who watched the match from his holiday bungalow in Bavaria sent a telegram to the German team, describing the match as a "great game" and thanking the players for their great service to German sport."

    https://www.theguardian.com/observer/englandfootball/story/0,9565,541570,00.html

    Argentina's President to watch World Cup final from home
    Read more At:
    https://www.aninews.in/news/world/others/argentinas-president-to-watch-world-cup-final-from-home20221218064450/

    Macron was in Qatar

    William does not have a real job, and is FA president. It also makes a difference that it's Australia, and it's the women.
    TBF, even if he hadn't been mired in scandal it's not as though president of the BRD had 'a real job.'
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,427
    Most amusing.

    They are MUCH more into negative campaigning over there. They say it works, but it doesn't seem to translate across to the UK.

    Thankfully.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,399
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    Not if you are 60+ it isn't....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154
    This is interesting.
    LFP batteries are considerably cheaper than the higher performance chemistries (and also more stable, and durable).

    A version with significantly better performance would bring the mass market EV much closer, even before the experimental solid state stuff comes to market.
    https://insideevs.com/news/682161/one-tries-ii-lfp-battery-almost-hits-energy-density-parity-ncm/
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    Anyway, in important news:

    The one day cup is reaching a climax, and in both Group A and Group B it's still all to play for. Gloucestershire take on Sussex at Hove knowing a win will pretty much see them through to the quarter final, with Worcestershire meeting Derbyshire at Derby facing the same equation. The one team that can easily stop one of them is Northants, who face two formidable opponents: (1) unbeaten Warwickshire, who have cruised through the group stage with the ease of a politician in a nightclub and (2) the weather, which if it stays like this is going to see the match washed out. Bad weather may also be a factor at Hove but the forecast for Derby is pretty good. Conditions should favour bowling, so expect a low scoring match, but that again favours Worcestershire who have an excellent seam attack.

    In the other group, Middlesex and Leicestershire will probably also be a washout, which would see Leicestershire through to at least the quarters and with a very good chance of topping the table to crown their finest season in many years. This was inevitable the moment I tipped them to be bottom of every competition but it's still great to see.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,172
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    Not if you are 60+ it isn't....
    I am 60+ and I hope I will have the courage to insist on being downranked if this is a queue I ever have to join.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,643
    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, in important news:

    The one day cup is reaching a climax, and in both Group A and Group B it's still all to play for. Gloucestershire take on Sussex at Hove knowing a win will pretty much see them through to the quarter final, with Worcestershire meeting Derbyshire at Derby facing the same equation. The one team that can easily stop one of them is Northants, who face two formidable opponents: (1) unbeaten Warwickshire, who have cruised through the group stage with the ease of a politician in a nightclub and (2) the weather, which if it stays like this is going to see the match washed out. Bad weather may also be a factor at Hove but the forecast for Derby is pretty good. Conditions should favour bowling, so expect a low scoring match, but that again favours Worcestershire who have an excellent seam attack.

    In the other group, Middlesex and Leicestershire will probably also be a washout, which would see Leicestershire through to at least the quarters and with a very good chance of topping the table to crown their finest season in many years. This was inevitable the moment I tipped them to be bottom of every competition but it's still great to see.

    Update from your man on the spot. It's raining heavily in Hove at the moment but should clear by 11, fine for the rest of the day. May be a delayed start. And Sussex are rubbish, so Gloucs should be fine.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    you are simply saving more life-years, the younger your patient is. Plus the over 60s are the generation least likely to have adhered to the 7 units a month rule or whatever it now is, which is the most frequent cause of this predicament.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    ydoethur said:

    Anyway, in important news:

    The one day cup is reaching a climax, and in both Group A and Group B it's still all to play for. Gloucestershire take on Sussex at Hove knowing a win will pretty much see them through to the quarter final, with Worcestershire meeting Derbyshire at Derby facing the same equation. The one team that can easily stop one of them is Northants, who face two formidable opponents: (1) unbeaten Warwickshire, who have cruised through the group stage with the ease of a politician in a nightclub and (2) the weather, which if it stays like this is going to see the match washed out. Bad weather may also be a factor at Hove but the forecast for Derby is pretty good. Conditions should favour bowling, so expect a low scoring match, but that again favours Worcestershire who have an excellent seam attack.

    In the other group, Middlesex and Leicestershire will probably also be a washout, which would see Leicestershire through to at least the quarters and with a very good chance of topping the table to crown their finest season in many years. This was inevitable the moment I tipped them to be bottom of every competition but it's still great to see.

    Update from your man on the spot. It's raining heavily in Hove at the moment but should clear by 11, fine for the rest of the day. May be a delayed start. And Sussex are rubbish, so Gloucs should be fine.
    Glos are expert at losing to rubbish.

    Why, last year they were the only side Yorkshire beat in the whole season.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,962
    edited August 2023
    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,287
    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    He could take a private jet all the way and helicopter into the stadium...
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,223
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    The UK has become an old age people's home with a country attached. Would the last one out please change the bed-pan?
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,643
    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Don't worry, Rishi will retrieve the situation. If England win, when the team come home he'll treat them to a celebratory trip in his helicopter.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,088
    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154
    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
  • Options
    SparksSparks Posts: 7
    Magnificent! I love Joe Biden - he's the only hopeful thing that's happened in politics for years.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    Nigelb said:

    This is interesting.
    LFP batteries are considerably cheaper than the higher performance chemistries (and also more stable, and durable).

    A version with significantly better performance would bring the mass market EV much closer, even before the experimental solid state stuff comes to market.
    https://insideevs.com/news/682161/one-tries-ii-lfp-battery-almost-hits-energy-density-parity-ncm/

    With all battery stories, remember that the various chemistries all seem to trade off

    1) stability
    2) power density
    3) power/weight
    4) cycles before degrading
    5) charging time
    6) maximum charge rate
    7) maximum discharge rate

    ..with each other. It is very hard to get all of them. Many such stories turn out to be about massive improvements in one characteristic at the expense of the others.
  • Options
    FPT @malcolmg

    For the avoidance of doubt, Malcolm, I should state that some of the best fun I ever had at football matches was in the company of Scottish supporters, notably at the formerly annual and now much missed England/Scotland match. Their generosity was as legendary as their passion.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154
    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Not hard to me. If you have made it to 60 in good health you have basically won, and any remaining years are a bonus. A 30 year old has a right to another 30.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,464
    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    That is not a high risk given there is anyway an overall risk of 1% of just dying of surgery, for any major op

    https://www.ncepod.org.uk/2011report2/downloads/POC_summary.pdf
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    The retirement age is well over 60.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    If that happened, they would get plus points from me for putting up with it.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
  • Options

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,464
    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    She would have been there whoever the finalists were. England were hosting!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Trump doesn't think he lost in 2020 though. Whether it is a repeat of 2020 largely depends on Trump's court cases, if he is convicted and jailed next year the RNC will almost certainly change the rules to prevent him being candidate again before the convention
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154
    .

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    'Growing' - or flatlining ?
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    She would have been there whoever the finalists were. England were hosting!
    I think she would have been OK with sending the Earl of Harewood along to a non-England final
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    Given it's taken this long to bring Trump to court on a series of slam dunks including phone recordings and his own Twitter account, it's hard to imagine an investigation with (at best) limited and insubstantial evidence going anywhere in the next eighteen months even if there's any substance to it.
  • Options
    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
  • Options

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    Hunter Biden's laptop is the gift that still has not given anything.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,675
    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Charles does seem to me to have something of a dismissive attitude to the Commonwealth - presumably because his mother was so into it. He seems to prefer the Common Market, judging by his desperate efforts to do State visits to Germany and France despite God clearly being against the idea.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,858
    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t:

    There's a lot of media huffing & puffing as to whether Prince William should go to @FIFAWWC in #Sydney. Consider - flight over 20 hours, security costs to the #Australians & the carbon footprint - he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Stay home sir and like the rest of us, watch it on TV.

    https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1692463868629393546?s=20

    And I think we can be pretty confident that the people criticising the heir to the throne/PM for not going would be first out of the blocks criticising them if they did. We see you.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154
    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    That is not a high risk given there is anyway an overall risk of 1% of just dying of surgery, for any major op

    https://www.ncepod.org.uk/2011report2/downloads/POC_summary.pdf
    A risk is a risk, though, and donors are volunteering for a major operation.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,154

    Nigelb said:

    This is interesting.
    LFP batteries are considerably cheaper than the higher performance chemistries (and also more stable, and durable).

    A version with significantly better performance would bring the mass market EV much closer, even before the experimental solid state stuff comes to market.
    https://insideevs.com/news/682161/one-tries-ii-lfp-battery-almost-hits-energy-density-parity-ncm/

    With all battery stories, remember that the various chemistries all seem to trade off

    1) stability
    2) power density
    3) power/weight
    4) cycles before degrading
    5) charging time
    6) maximum charge rate
    7) maximum discharge rate

    ..with each other. It is very hard to get all of them. Many such stories turn out to be about massive improvements in one characteristic at the expense of the others.
    I think what's happened here is that they just put a lot more effort into what was the boring budget solution, and optimised it.
    The point about it being a more stable chemistry seems to have enabled lighter weight packaging, which helps the numbers considerably.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Online threats made against the grand jury set to indict Trump

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66542193
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited August 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is interesting.
    LFP batteries are considerably cheaper than the higher performance chemistries (and also more stable, and durable).

    A version with significantly better performance would bring the mass market EV much closer, even before the experimental solid state stuff comes to market.
    https://insideevs.com/news/682161/one-tries-ii-lfp-battery-almost-hits-energy-density-parity-ncm/

    With all battery stories, remember that the various chemistries all seem to trade off

    1) stability
    2) power density
    3) power/weight
    4) cycles before degrading
    5) charging time
    6) maximum charge rate
    7) maximum discharge rate

    ..with each other. It is very hard to get all of them. Many such stories turn out to be about massive improvements in one characteristic at the expense of the others.
    I think what's happened here is that they just put a lot more effort into what was the boring budget solution, and optimised it.
    The point about it being a more stable chemistry seems to have enabled lighter weight packaging, which helps the numbers considerably.
    I am always suspicious when they don’t present all the numbers. We shall see how it goes.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,501
    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I've worked in lots of different countries and can't hand on heart say I clocked a material difference in general work ethic from one to the other. They all had grafters grifters and slackers and the average attitude to work was just the same - the majority want and try to do a good job but don't want to bust a gut over it. How hard people work depends on drive, reaction to stress, relationship with colleagues, and (related) how interesting and enjoyable they find their job - I think this is true wherever you are. The main variations by country I noticed were with lunch. Eg in Italy it was the norm to decamp and have a hot meal somewhere, not eat at your desk. They would also pop out mid morning for an espresso, just a quickie stood up at the cafe counter. Unlike the sit down restaurant lunch with cutlery (what a faff) I took to that like a duck to water. It really suited me despite me being from Rotherham.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    I’m sure the boys from the Libyan Coastguard can get you more than half a liver. No citizenship required.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Government gives the FCA power to fine banks if they fail to provide a bank branch or ATM within 1 mile of an urban area or 3 miles of a rural area

    "Banks face fines if they breach rules on access to cash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66537642
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t:

    There's a lot of media huffing & puffing as to whether Prince William should go to @FIFAWWC in #Sydney. Consider - flight over 20 hours, security costs to the #Australians & the carbon footprint - he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Stay home sir and like the rest of us, watch it on TV.

    https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1692463868629393546?s=20

    And I think we can be pretty confident that the people criticising the heir to the throne/PM for not going would be first out of the blocks criticising them if they did. We see you.

    So, can we get this straight: the monarchist case against PW going to Australia is that it would be an elaborate and very expensive charade with no practical purpose whatever?

    Sure you've thought that one through?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399

    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t:

    There's a lot of media huffing & puffing as to whether Prince William should go to @FIFAWWC in #Sydney. Consider - flight over 20 hours, security costs to the #Australians & the carbon footprint - he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Stay home sir and like the rest of us, watch it on TV.

    https://twitter.com/RoyalDickie/status/1692463868629393546?s=20

    And I think we can be pretty confident that the people criticising the heir to the throne/PM for not going would be first out of the blocks criticising them if they did. We see you.

    Would it be around the same number of people reflexively defending him in either instance?
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    edited August 2023

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Charles does seem to me to have something of a dismissive attitude to the Commonwealth - presumably because his mother was so into it. He seems to prefer the Common Market, judging by his desperate efforts to do State visits to Germany and France despite God clearly being against the idea.
    I don't think that is true, the King spent time in Australia as a youth and has visited almost all Commonwealth nations.

    However he also recognises we are in the 21st century and no longer have an Empire. When the Queen came to the throne much of Africa, Malaysia, Yemen, Hong Kong etc were still in the British Empire and she was their head of state.

    Indeed Charles would almost certainly have voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum had he had a vote as would William whereas his mother would likely have voted Leave
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,883

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    The UK has become an old age people's home with a country attached. Would the last one out please change the bed-pan?
    While only speculating might these averages be distorted by numbers?

    I would imagine there is a lot more 60+ people waiting for transplants than 16 to 29 year olds therefore a few taking a long while to find a suitable donor is going to push the average up significantly compared to some of the 60+ year olds taking a while.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,341
    edited August 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    She would have been there whoever the finalists were. England were hosting!
    I think she would have been OK with sending the Earl of Harewood along to a non-England final
    She was at the final of Euro 96 too, which didn't feature England thanks to that rotter Southgate.

    image

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited August 2023
    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Wembley

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    A

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
    Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?

    Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
  • Options

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    She would have been there whoever the finalists were. England were hosting!
    I think she would have been OK with sending the Earl of Harewood along to a non-England final
    She was at the final of Euro 96 too, which didn't feature England thanks to that rotter Southgate.

    image

    Saxe-Coburg-Gotha :lol:
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,095
    HYUFD said:

    Miklosvar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Wembley

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
    That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
    Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
    12 hours - it's 22hr 5 minutes minimum to Sydney...
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,088
    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.
  • Options

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    Hunter Biden's laptop is the gift that still has not given anything.
    There is a whole question mark whether Joe B took bribes. Several ex-business partners claim he did. The explanations have changed. We have now the admittance that Joe got on calls with Chinese businessmen to "talk about the weather" straight after which several million dollars were wired to family accounts.

    It's a story - you may not like it but it is raising questions and we are only in August 2023. It might go nowhere but it might go somewhere. Who knows.

    But what is clear is the polling - if the public thinks he took bribes, it doesn't want him as the candidate. So, if you are interested in the nomination betting, you should be taking note.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    A

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
    Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?

    Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
    In Larry Niven's future the death penalty extends further and further to cover things like parking offences/no TV licence, to satisfy demand for organs.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,501
    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,667
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
    Not according to that chart.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,858
    Who knew?

    Private rents faced by Scots have hit new record levels in a homelessness crisis despite a bill freeze brought in by the Scottish Government to support people through the cost-of-living crisis.

    The Herald can reveal that annual rent rises from private landlords have leapt by 5.7% in the year to July, according to official estimates. Two years ago the rise was just 1.3%.


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23730760.appalling-scotgov-rent-curbs-fail-prevent-new-record-bill-rises/
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,464
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Miklosvar said:

    FPT decrepiterJohnL said

    The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.

    Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.

    Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.

    I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
    Charles does seem to me to have something of a dismissive attitude to the Commonwealth - presumably because his mother was so into it. He seems to prefer the Common Market, judging by his desperate efforts to do State visits to Germany and France despite God clearly being against the idea.
    I don't think that is true, the King spent time in Australia as a youth and has visited almost all Commonwealth nations.

    However he also recognises we are in the 21st century and no longer have an Empire. When the Queen came to the throne much of Africa, Malaysia, Yemen, Hong Kong etc were still in the British Empire and she was their head of state.

    Indeed Charles would almost certainly have voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum had he had a vote as would William whereas his mother would likely have voted Leave
    If I understand the franchise of the 2016 referendum correctly, Charles could have vote in it, though by convention didn't.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    .

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    'Growing' - or flatlining ?
    Given the appointing of a Special Counsel, the change of defence, the likely start of an impeachment enquiry and the collapse of the plea deal, probably growing.

    It may go nowhere but, if people are accusing Biden on oath of influence peddling and possibly taking bribes, you should be at least considering the possibility it is a risk factor.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,501

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    Hunter Biden's laptop is the gift that still has not given anything.
    There is a whole question mark whether Joe B took bribes. Several ex-business partners claim he did. The explanations have changed. We have now the admittance that Joe got on calls with Chinese businessmen to "talk about the weather" straight after which several million dollars were wired to family accounts.

    It's a story - you may not like it but it is raising questions and we are only in August 2023. It might go nowhere but it might go somewhere. Who knows.

    But what is clear is the polling - if the public thinks he took bribes, it doesn't want him as the candidate. So, if you are interested in the nomination betting, you should be taking note.
    That's right. It's a 'story'. I prefer a good Rebus myself but each to his own.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    Dura_Ace said:

    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.

    Winchester disdains soccer and has its own ludicrous game

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_College_football

    so relatively unlikely to have developed a passion for it there.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399

    A

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
    Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?

    Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
    My Calvinist spirit would see that as just desserts. Beautiful football players that they were, I don’t feel entirely positive about the liver transplants that George Best and Jim Baxter received (two livers in Baxter’s case).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,036
    edited August 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Government gives the FCA power to fine banks if they fail to provide a bank branch or ATM within 1 mile of an urban area or 3 miles of a rural area

    "Banks face fines if they breach rules on access to cash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66537642

    I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service.
    Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    A
    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    While I am not up in the latest developments in this, my father was deeply involved in the evolution of the QALYS and their use in U.K. medicine.

    IIRC a major factor in decision about timing is severity of the disease, so the person most ill gets a lot of priority on that basis.

    Again, IIRC, simply using x years of life would end some medical treatments for old people.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,287
    England’s entire World Cup squad will be in line for honours on the new year list if they beat Spain in Sunday’s final.

    When England won the European Championship and England’s men won the T20 cricket World Cup last year, only selected players were given awards, but it is accepted that the achievement of winning the biggest prize in football means every member of the squad would be honoured.

    Last summer the Euros-winning captain Leah Williamson, who has missed the World Cup with a knee injury, was awarded an OBE. Her team-mates Beth Mead, Lucy Bronze and Ellen White received MBEs. Those previously honoured who are also in this team would receive “upgrades”, so Bronze would get an OBE and Sarina Wiegman, the head coach, is in line to be made a dame if England win.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/england-players-to-receive-new-year-honours-if-they-win-world-cup-xv7tqpkvc
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:

    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.

    I never get this whole thing of forcing our leaders to go economy just to show they are 'saving the public purse'. Anyone who has done a similar routine knows you would come back completely fucked. And then he'd be accused of not being with it.
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
    The test seems to be who is likely to die sooner, given no transplant? Oldies win presumably both on actuarial grounds and because of co morbidities. This is a scandal.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,606
    Heathener said:

    Most amusing.

    They are MUCH more into negative campaigning over there. They say it works, but it doesn't seem to translate across to the UK.

    Thankfully.

    Negative campaigning in the UK is hidden away in targeted Facebook ads from astroturf groups that appear suddenly during election campaigns.

    It's consequently much less visible compared to TV adverts, but I think it played an underappreciated role in the GE 2019 Tory victory.

    I've put it down as a known unknown in terms of the effect it might have on the next election result. Could a tsunami of targeted negative online adverts turn public opinion against Keir Starmer during the election campaign?

    One of the things that makes this hard to judge is that the adverts are targeted based on the information Facebook holds about you - age, sex and location for starters. This means I only saw the ads aimed at youngish middle-aged men living in a strongly Remain city, and not the ads targeting female pensioners, or men living in small towns, etc.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    edited August 2023

    Nigelb said:

    .

    On topic, I don't think we should read too much into Biden going for Trump this early in campaign ads. My guess is they're trialling a number of comms messages in advance of the real campaign.

    We do, however, need a good understanding of the rules.

    I've always said that to be successful in political betting (and in other forms, for that matter): know the process, know the candidates, know the history, know opinion. With that information and decent judgement, you'll be ahead of 95% of punters.

    There is a much higher chance than usual of the wheels coming off one or both campaigns during or after the primaries. Biden is into his 80s and while not exactly frail, nor the image of robust good health; Trump is obese, has a bad diet, in his late 70s. Both are in highly stressful positions and the health risk to each is high. Obviously, the risk of legal problems is also high for Trump.

    Knowing what can and is likely to happen if a candidate withdraws, for whatever reason, at any given stage will be important. Despite all I've just written, it will also probably be over-estimated by Joe Public.

    Very good advice.

    I would add one to Biden's list, which I have mentioned before, namely the growing investigation in how much he and his family benefited from influence peddling. Given the momentum it has built up in the past six weeks, and that the WH defence line has changed (from "I knew nothing" to "I did not do business"), it has the potential to cause another curveball.
    'Growing' - or flatlining ?
    Given the appointing of a Special Counsel, the change of defence, the likely start of an impeachment enquiry and the collapse of the plea deal, probably growing.

    It may go nowhere but, if people are accusing Biden on oath of influence peddling and possibly taking bribes, you should be at least considering the possibility it is a risk factor.
    Does ‘it may go nowhere’ auto complete on your various devices?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816

    Dura_Ace said:

    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.

    I never get this whole thing of forcing our leaders to go economy just to show they are 'saving the public purse'. Anyone who has done a similar routine knows you would come back completely fucked. And then he'd be accused of not being with it.
    He should buy an A380, fit it out in a cross between Austin Powers/Arab prince. Then really, really own it.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I expect that the US work ethic is driven by the fact that the penalty for failure is far more severe than in any Western European country.

    I find bizarre the Telegraph's idea that Mississippi is a good place to go and emigrate to.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I expect that the US work ethic is driven by the fact that the penalty for failure is far more severe than in any Western European country.

    I find bizarre the Telegraph's idea that Mississippi is a good place to go and emigrate to.
    Well if you want a western nation area which is anti woke, low tax, low spend, tough on crime and socially conservative then Mississippi is hard to beat
  • Options
    MiklosvarMiklosvar Posts: 1,855

    A

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
    Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?

    Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
    My Calvinist spirit would see that as just desserts. Beautiful football players that they were, I don’t feel entirely positive about the liver transplants that George Best and Jim Baxter received (two livers in Baxter’s case).
    I think the principle is not to punish past behaviour but to factor it in to likelihood of success - past drinking implies future drinking.

    TBF to baxter his transplants were 4 days apart so presumably rejection first time round, rather than he wrecked the first one.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,341
    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I expect that the US work ethic is driven by the fact that the penalty for failure is far more severe than in any Western European country.

    I find bizarre the Telegraph's idea that Mississippi is a good place to go and emigrate to.
    My sister lives and works in the US and says the Americans are lazy blighters - forever throwing sickies.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,606
    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial assumption is that younger people who require a liver transplant are perhaps disproportionately likely to do so because of alcohol abuse, and therefore have a higher risk of trashing any new liver they receive by transplant. So this would be a result of penalising people who are sick due to "lifestyle choices", as commonly advocated for obesity-related illnesses and others.

    That's just an assumption, though. I can't otherwise make any sense of it.
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.

    I never get this whole thing of forcing our leaders to go economy just to show they are 'saving the public purse'. Anyone who has done a similar routine knows you would come back completely fucked. And then he'd be accused of not being with it.
    He should buy an A380, fit it out in a cross between Austin Powers/Arab prince. Then really, really own it.
    Well his in-laws could definitely afford that so not out of the realms of possibility.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    Miklosvar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.

    Winchester disdains soccer and has its own ludicrous game

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_College_football

    so relatively unlikely to have developed a passion for it there.
    Public schools are mainly rugby union and cricket and a bit of tennis, squash and fencing or their own unique ball games like Rishi had at Winchester and William at Eton.

    They will express an interest in soccer when it is good PR to connect with the masses but not really their natural game. Rishi is much more a cricket fan
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,501
    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
    Not according to that chart.
    Hmm does look odd. If you have a 35 year old and a 70 year old and they're equally sick and equally able to 'take' a transplant which would likely work it has to be that the 35 year old has higher priority. Either we have a crazy perverse system or there's something more to that chart than meets the eye. Maybe to do with the 'all else being equal' caveat. Interesting anyway.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    edited August 2023
    On topic, a couple of points:

    1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.

    2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).

    3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I expect that the US work ethic is driven by the fact that the penalty for failure is far more severe than in any Western European country.

    I find bizarre the Telegraph's idea that Mississippi is a good place to go and emigrate to.
    Well if you want a western nation area which is anti woke, low tax, low spend, tough on crime and socially conservative then Mississippi is hard to beat
    I read of one public information film in Mississippi where a State trooper stands outside a very grim looking prison, and growls:

    "Punch out your wife or girlfriend, and you'll be sent here to *be* someone's wife or girlfriend."

    In neighbouring Alabama, a former Attorney General, Charlie Graddick, won election on the slogan "I'll fry em till their eyeballs pop out." He eventually lost the race to be Chief Justice to Roy Moore, as he was too liberal for Alabama.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,816
    edited August 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    FPT discussion of work ethic of different nationalities: my experience of Americans is different from gardenwalker. They get the job done but not until they’ve spent most of the day popping out to Starbucks, gossiping over the cubical wall and having team meetings. The dividing line between work and leisure is very blurry. They do start work frighteningly early though.

    The French are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I worked in a French office for a bit years ago, and it was a bi-polar set up. If you were working, you were working. Usually in silence and pretty intensively. Then come coffee break or lunch time you stopped working and stopped thinking about work. Then back to the desk and work again. Then home time and forget about work until tomorrow. The sharpest of dividing lines.

    I expect that the US work ethic is driven by the fact that the penalty for failure is far more severe than in any Western European country.

    I find bizarre the Telegraph's idea that Mississippi is a good place to go and emigrate to.
    Well if you want a western nation area which is anti woke, low tax, low spend, tough on crime and socially conservative then Mississippi is hard to beat
    And don’t possess an offensive wife. Or wear loud.. shoes in a built up area. Or walk on cracks in the pavement.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, a couple of points:

    1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.

    2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).

    3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?

    The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,232
    ydoethur said:

    On topic, a couple of points:

    1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.

    2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).

    3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?

    Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,399
    Miklosvar said:

    A

    Miklosvar said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    Nigelb said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
    There are living donor transplants, though the risks are not minor (1 in 200 risk of death):
    https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/receiving-a-liver/living-donor-liver-transplant/

    Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
    ‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’

    Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
    Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
    Me too. Trebles all round!
    Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?

    Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
    My Calvinist spirit would see that as just desserts. Beautiful football players that they were, I don’t feel entirely positive about the liver transplants that George Best and Jim Baxter received (two livers in Baxter’s case).
    I think the principle is not to punish past behaviour but to factor it in to likelihood of success - past drinking implies future drinking.

    TBF to baxter his transplants were 4 days apart so presumably rejection first time round, rather than he wrecked the first one.
    Ah, didn’t realise that was the case for Baxter, had a half remembered tabloid headline in my head. As I may have bored on in the past, I occasionally had a pint in the the pub Baxter frequented post transplant. He certainly ostentatiously drank orange juice with his steak pie and tattles.

    Don’t have much experience of transplants but do of alcoholics. I have a feeling for many of the latter it would be hellishly difficult not to see (if only subconsciously) a new liver as a reason to start all over again.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,050
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Government gives the FCA power to fine banks if they fail to provide a bank branch or ATM within 1 mile of an urban area or 3 miles of a rural area

    "Banks face fines if they breach rules on access to cash - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66537642

    I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service.
    Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
    Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland?
    I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,501
    Miklosvar said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
    The test seems to be who is likely to die sooner, given no transplant? Oldies win presumably both on actuarial grounds and because of co morbidities. This is a scandal.
    Which would be ridiculous and wrong. I'd hope and expect there's a less perverse explanation - not that I can supply it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,561
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, a couple of points:

    1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.

    2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).

    3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?

    Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
    You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,606
    kinabalu said:

    Miklosvar said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    Miklosvar said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

    Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:



    60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.

    My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"

    So now I just don't know.

    Pause.

    [runs away embarrassed]
    A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant.
    The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.

    That doesn't seem quite right to me.
    Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
    Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
    "It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

    It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.

    Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."

    Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
    Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
    This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.

    The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
    That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
    The test seems to be who is likely to die sooner, given no transplant? Oldies win presumably both on actuarial grounds and because of co morbidities. This is a scandal.
    Which would be ridiculous and wrong. I'd hope and expect there's a less perverse explanation - not that I can supply it.
    It would be interesting to know how long on average a 35 year old alcoholic who receives a liver transplant goes on to live for. It might not be the 40-50 years you would expect for a 35 year old chosen at random.

    Certainly would appear worth looking into.
This discussion has been closed.