TheCat

I used another example of an extreme point of view. Its a perfect analogy. Pedophiles also exist, doesnt make Qanon any less extreme. Racism does indeed exist, and, similarly, that doesn't make some CRT groups any less extreme. Let's not strawman this away from the intended point which you you're well aware I was making. In anycase, I was agreeing with your original point, just adding another example to illustrate extreme and inflexible points of view. It wasn't a 'counter' to anything.

Do I really need to walk you through what a public debate is? Look at what Marcus Rashford has done for meals for kids with a bit of public pressure... No I don't think there was sufficient public pressure on the government around lockdown alternatives. No public debate, no voter awareness of alternatives, therefore no pressure to consider alternatives. With regards to sage and the epidemiologists on the group. They are the experts in modelling of disease spread for sure...but if you run a model on the spread of a disease...what would be the most efficient and easiest way to reduce your calculated R rate?...LOCKDOWN. So it's natural that they advise as such. SAGE are not concerned with the economy or other 'ancilliary' concerns. Without public pressure on the government to consider alternatives, I don't think the pressure would then have come from the govt back to sage to come up with some other ideas which may have also been acceptable from a public health point of view...but perhaps not quite as 'clear cut' as LOCKDOWN everyone...

Agree with the consensus here. See if it sinks in and they attempt to take action over the next week or two. I think you did the right thing, but no matter how polite your raising of the issue was, people will likely feel defensive and slightly embarrassed in the moment of confrontation. They may have 'tried everything' in the past, and sort of given up a bit more recently as it just seemed hopeless; and to then have a stranger (well..neighbour) point this out wouldn't be the most comfortable experience, even if delivered with a smile!:) Of course they may well just be total @rseholes and not care a jot....but lets hope for the former! Good luck.

Sure....but deaths are not the same as hospitalizations... I also didn't suggest deaths were limited by age. I said the death rate would probably plummet. That is exactly the same rationale behind vaccinating over 70's first, then allowing things to open back up progressively at that point. My point was a hypothetical...and hypothetically...the same result (i.e. plummeting death rate (not zero death rate)) could have conceptually been achieved much earlier by locking up over 70's for the last few months. As I already said, not particularly practical (or ethical), the point is there should have been (its almost too late now assuming vaccination is successful) some more nuanced public discussion about some potenbtial alternatives. If we could have had lower deaths, and lower unemployment/people on the poverty line - im sure we could all agree that may have been a worthy discussion, even if the resultant conclusion was to do exactly what we've done....

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It is all very well arguing for freedom of speech > and wishing for sensible nuanced debate, but the > truth is that mainstream media has fallen into the > trap of reflecting the shock jock style of > commercial tabloids and social media, as it fights > ever more competition for viewers/ readers. > Hysteria and outrage sells. Agreed. But just because it sells, and that's the way all media is headed...doesn't mean we should collectively accept the death of nuance and sensible debate. We should keep calling for and attempting to have sensible debate. I don't believe in fighting fire with fire in this context...fight it with water. > > The cost is increasing numbers of people being > sucked into cult like belief systems, like Q Anon, > and Pandemic hoax theories. Yes indeed. Its also true at both ends of the political spectrum...think Critical Race Theory now becoming increasingly mainstream, which by its very design closes down debate (i.e. racism is inherent in EVERY human interaction apparently, and questioning if something is really racist, or inability to idenitfy said racism is just proof of one's inherent racism and privilege apprently...quite the head twisting logic there.....anyway, I digress). > > On covid, any alternate that lessens restrictions > is going to mean more infection and ultimately > more people in hospital. JHB has been one of those > people willfully neglecting to point that out. So > for me, the issue is not in calling for lesser > restrictions (or different ones), but the failure > to be honest about what that will mean in reality > to public health. That is that part that is covid > denial. So...hypothetically...if everyone over the age of 70 was banned from setting foot outside of their home, and the rest of the population went about their lives with absolutely no restrictions...I'd hazard a guess that the death rate would plummet. Surely one can argue that this is a change in restrictions which would be of benefit to public health? Now clearly thats not paritucularly practical or realistic, but its an example to make the point - I don't accept the premise that any change to 'lockdown' means we also must expect that it will have overall negative consequences. Hence the desire for discussion.

Brendan O'Neil does waffle on and exaggerate a bit....but his central point in this article isnt wrong in my view.... https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/19/the-witch-hunting-of-lockdown-sceptics/ The lumping together of people raising questions over the specific nature of the restrictions we are subject to, with the people who claim COVID is a hoax, is symptomatic of total lack of nuance in public discourse, and results in the shutdown of any debate or discussion (certainly not a covid specific issue by any stretch)....

There is a legitimate discussion to be had against lockdown per se. That is to say, there could be a sensible discussion about alternative restrictions which MIGHT allow for more freedoms/economic activity while still posing an acceptable risk to public health. Unfortunately, as the OP alludes to, many of the anti-lockdown people are not really making these 'sensible' arguments very eloquently, and then you have the extreme 'Covid Deniers' who just undercuts any credibility or hope of genuine discussion. On the flip side of course, you have the uber-lockdown fans, who immediately paint any reasonable comment against lockdown as being associated with the extreme anti-lockdown mob So the dominant public debate really only seems to focus on the two extremes and is a binary discussion - lockdown or don't lockdown. I think there's much more to it than that in reality.

I do have to agree with you Spartacus.... "If you want to be vegan then surly the point is" Vegans can indeed by quite surly by nature.

I understand finances are stretched, and Kahn is trying to balance the books... but it does seem like his 'go to' is raising taxes/charges (10% council tax increase, a congestion charge for all of greater London of 5.50 a day, and the 'temporary' increase of the existing congestion charge to 15quid a day last year), rather than cutting waste/improving efficiencies/increase borrowing (at least for the short term).....if times were normal, I might prepared to be more accepting, but a 'tax first' attitude in the current environment is a real kick in the nuts for a lot of people. He's lucky Shaun Bailey seems so inept as an alternative candidate.... https://www.cityam.com/london-tories-council-tax-hike-is-a-result-of-mayors-mistakes/

Mark Twain was indeed correct....Denial ain't just a river in Egypt... But I do agree even with all the political will in the world, it's not a short term project from a study, financing or construction perspective.

https://thearabweekly.com/british-moroccan-undersea-tunnel-would-connect-africa-europe If completed, this would undoubtedly become the major entry point for African goods and produce into Europe, and it would be controlled by the UK....potential opportunity or not?....discuss....

Her words..... Asked if her jaw had dropped when she saw the deal with the EU on Christmas Eve, Ms Prentis said: ?No, the agreement came when we were all very busy on Christmas Eve, in my case organising the local nativity trail. Specifically asked about her reaction the moment the deal dropped. No mention of 'never read it'. The very definition of fake news.

Sorry to tell you Steven, but I took your advice which you posted a few weeks ago, and have been fly-tipping all my junk on Dawsons Hill (what are the chances?!). If you can clear a path through it all to get to the top, just remember to take a mask, as if you decide to throw some of it on the bonfire, most of it will produce some pretty toxic gases.

This Victoria Prentis thing is ridiculous...its no wonder people lose faith/have already lost faith in both the media and in politics. The way that some of the media and that chap from the SNP are carrying on (he's demanded her resignation) is absolutely ludicrous. All she has said is that at the moment the deal was announced she was busy with something else (in this case an xmas event...funny that, being xmas eve and all).....not that she never read it at all.... Here's what actually happened according to journalist in the DT who took the small extra effort of seeking some further clarification from someone's press office before banging an outraged story out.... "However, it was pointed out that the legal text of the post-Brexit deal was not published until several days later at which juncture Ms Prentis, a former Government lawyer, read it at once. She had been party to draft proposals on fisheries in the run up to the UK-EU agreement being finalised. On Christmas Eve the minister, who has organised the nativity play in her village church for the past 17 years, is understood to have been out of the house for only an hour and a half attending to the task. During the rest of the day she read the briefing note on the Brexit deal prepared for her by officials, and held calls with colleagues. At 6pm she hosted a cross-party Zoom briefing, to which all MPs and peers were invited" Ian Blackford/Philippa Whitford from the SNP would do better to focus on some of the genuine problems for scottish fisherman (whether caused by the deal or not), rather than riling everyone up with this cr@p.....

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a Eurosceptic, get me outta here!... > > https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13708 > 880.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Emily-Atack.jpg Ha!...very good DR...that gave me a chuckle

While it wasn't much of an issue back in the 2016 campaigns......yet ANOTHER tangible benefit of leaving the EU....im sure even the most ardent remainers will be forced to agree with this one.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/yellow-mealworm-safe-for-humans-to-eat-says-eu-food-safety-agency :)

does the app have a temperature or a new continuous cough?

"Because age is the primary predictor of COVID-19 mortality, this means mainly targeting older people. It would be necessary to vaccinate around 32 times more 60?64 year olds than those older than 90 year old to save a life" What a coincidental statistic, given that saving the life of a 60 year old (on average) would mean they also get to live for ~30 more years than the remaining years of the 90 years old..... now thats going very deep into the moral questions...I might stop there!!!

Who is it more important to vaccinate first? Person A: 85 years old. Sits a home all day, apart from once weekly trip to the shops. Hasn't seen extended family in months. HIgher risk of serious illness. Person B: 35 years old. Works as a refuse collector. Travels on the tube to get from home to the depot. Has unavoidable interactions in daily life. Lower risk of serious illness. I dont know the right answer here (I dont think there is one). But there is a case to be made surely that many of those who are more at risk from serious illness (or death) are probably also more likely to be able to shield at home for a few more weeks while a greater portion of key workers are vaccinated. Am thinking about this question in the context of the very live debate about school closures and the harm its doing to children of all ages. There are only ~500,000 teachers (and teaching assistants) in the entire country...so theoretically that number could be vaccinated in about 3 days if prioritised...then schools could be open again about a week later.... Im surprised this isn't the key message being pushed for by the teaching unions (who I would argue have simply advocated for school closures far too quickly without loudly pushing for alternatives that could be both safe for teachers and in the best interest of students (FOR CLARITY - this is a dig at the teaching unions, not the teachers themselves, who have mostly been doing their best in a very tough situation)). Is that upside worth the cost of asking the over 70's to stay isolated and wait another week for the vaccine?...... Of course the wildcard in all this is the science is not really clear yet on whether having the vaccine will stop you from transmitting the virus on to others. It will save you from getting ill yourself, but you might still be able to pass it on to others...which probably supports that the priority should indeed lie with those most at risk of serious illlness.... IN anycase, what a total minefield...moral questions, logisitcal questions, economic questions, well-being questions etc etc etc...

KK....you've said a couple of times, there are 10's of millions of 'mini-trumps' which is concerning you. I do think we need to disaggregate the action of voting for trump from loving absolutely everything he stands for or does. I don't think we would call everyone who voted Labour at the last UK election a Mini-Jez.....(Can you imagine!!) On Keano's point.....I have to agree, I dont think Trump is 'Evil'...but then that very much of course depends on how one uses such a subjective term, so each ot their own on this one I suppose. I think he's dangerous, I think he's harmful, I think he's a twat and I think he's incompetent, but I wouldnt say evil.

I know that Spiked can exaggerate a little....but let's hope that this report isn't accurate with regards how Biden hopes to unite America..... https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/11/joe-bidens-pork-barrel-identity-politics/

Cool Headed = Apologist for violent behavour???????? No. cool headed means, assess the fact, follow due process, prosecute where appropriate. If people start getting trialed in the court of public opinion, with the broader public riled up by salicious and prejudcied words in the media, then is that really demonstrating a higher standard/moral compass than what started off the thugs, rioters and looters in the first place? Of course, don't apologize for them, but the majority should not use their disgraceful behavior to justify letting our principles slip in how a cool-headed democracy should react and deal with these sort of events.

There does need to be some cooler heads indeed Keano. I think some of the media (and social media warriors) immediately using words like 'coup' are a little premature to say the least....on the surface this seems like riled up protesters, who's protest got out of hand, and became a riot. Not an attempted coup (unless evidence somehow implicates law enforcement as an link above suggests). Again, on face value, if it was meant to be a coup...then it was the sh!ttest coup attempt in history......I mean the other side has national guard's, nuclear submarines and missile-laden drones.....but, sure, lets attempt a takeover of power with some MAGA hats and a few confederate flags..... 'Disgraceful'? Yes. 'Coup'?....hmmm, maybe not.....

Its funny how whenever a point is made that is counter to 'remaining', you always manage to expand it to the 'wider point', so that you can hark back to the well-trodden path of implying how much you dont like brexit overall.... fine you don't like it. You may have mentioned that before. But i'll say again, not every point has to be reflective of the ENTIRE debate.... As I said in an earlier post....this is just one small issue within the wider debate....of course a sensible person doesnt make massive decision based on one point. Anyway...I sense we are talking at cross purposes to some degreee, as this has somehow descending into a pointless (no pun intended) discussion on which we both essentially agree!

no its not a 'gotcha' moment. Im not suggesting it is. its just an interesting point, worthy of note, that seemingly you agree with, but are also weirdly tying yourself in knots trying to argue against at the same time (i.e its NOT neutral to be able oargue a case either way??!!!?)