Blah Blah

I am inclined to agree with that Alex.

I agree with that too. Scotland voted to stay part of a UK that was also part of the EU. Now that we are not, it changes everything. But here is the rub. Sturgeon in some ways is arguing for a choice between the EU or the Union, but the SNP are nationalists at heart and that has to be remembered. How will that nationalism sit in the context of the EU? Scottish voters will themselves decide which serves them best, but with Scottish fishing hurting and with other economic losses for farmers, Scotland may decide being part of that bigger market on the doorstep is going to serve them better than Westminster. They may also see rejoining the EU as beneficial for investment too. I could easily see an exodus to Scotland of business, skills and investment. Like many others, I would also qualify for a Scottish passport through lineage.

One glance at the flippant tone brought by Troll Snatcher and your endorsement of his (or her) notion that disagreement equates to bullying, speaks for itself. You are not in the best shape to preach about credibility either.

You make a valid point Seabag. The UK has indeed already split with a range of divisions that will take decades to heal. But aren't they also a range of divisions that have always existed in some form somewhere? It is a set of certain circumstances that have amplified and brought them to the fore.

I do find it odd that people who support Brexit are calling Scottish Independence a bad idea. If Brexit could promise sunlit uplands, then Scottish indy can do the same. After it, it doesn't seem to matter anymore if anything is actually true. Just on the Euro, pretty sure two years membership of the ERM is required before switching to it anyway.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a Scottish parent. > > Does that mean if Scotland gains independence I > can have a Scottish passport? > > And if it joins the EU, an EU passport? > > Assuming I live that long, of course 😂 Yes it does. A lot of Brits will be able to take advantage of this. England could in theory lose half its population, given the right incentives :D

Hamletter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As expected, more bullying intended to suppress > views that you don't agree with. It is clear that you are here to pick fights and nothing else.

You don't have to let anyone into your home, not even your landlord. That is the law. They have to go to court if they want to force entry. If it is an essential repair, then you have the right to negotiate terms. Contact renter rights as cited above. They will give you legal advice. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone in unless you are sure they are covid negative, mask or no mask. It is your home. It needs to be safe.

In all of this, it is worth remembering, and pointing out, that the UK is a major player in genetics and vaccine development. Pharmaceuticals are our second biggest export to the EU too. So the UK was always going to be in the race to develop a vaccine, with huge investment from government money. In other words, this is one of the things we excel in. As for the EU, their behaviour is unacceptable on this. They failed to pre-order enough, took too long to approve, and have left themselves susceptible to supply issues. To deal with that by trying to block exports of a vaccine WE developed and are licensing at cost price has angered a lot of remainers too. Not the EU's finest hour for sure.

I have to support Seabag here. Why? Because even though you have been hit by the impacts of 2008 etc TheCat, I am willing to wager you were still left with a decent livelihood. The people being hit by the disruptions in trade are in no such comfortable position. And you are incredibly glib about that, as Seabag points out. You clearly see people's livelihoods as mere collateral damage, well people not as fortunate as you that it. Because those are the people that this lousy trade agreement are going to hit hardest. They don't have ten years for things to adjust and iron themselves out. The best deal was always the one we had as a member of the EU. Nothing changes that. Replacing what is lost by leaving is going to be harder than you think.

The problem is that everything was wrong from the off. Taiwan had suffered from the first SARS outbreak in 2003 and they learned the lesson. As soon as an outbreak was known about in China, they closed their borders, put into action the localised track and trace they had already the infrastructure in place for and EVERYONE had to wear masks with no exemptions. The result is that Taiwan has never locked down and only has 7 deaths so far. They have a population that is around one third of the UK's, so not insignificant. The west however, never took a pandemic as any kind as a real serious threat, and while her economies are on a roller coaster, Asia is functioning pretty much as before. Boris had no excuse. We had more time than anyone to see what was coming. Trump had even more time. There is no way of excusing the government on the slow responses. Starmer has been consistent on calling for those responses sooner. Things absolutely would have been different under Labour. They would have given the role of track and track to local public health bodies for a start, and not wasted tens of millions on their mates business enterprises.

He is the opposition leader. It is his job to oppose and the opposition itself signifies what he is for. Not sure what the point of this thread is to be honest. Are we going to have a thread for every vacuous comment made by an irrelevant back bencher?

Adults who use 'inexperience' as the reason for the language they use are not even beginning to understand the issue with the language. What the OP means is that they regret the language used because of the backlash, not because they understand why using it was inappropriate. So nothing learned whatsoever.

They have to offer a refund on faulty goods. Can't see why that wouldn't extend to foodstuff. https://www.money.co.uk/guides/your-refund-rights-explained.htm#when-should-you-rely-on-the-manufacturer-s-warranty

Let's not beat around the bush here. A complaint about a noisy child (warranted or not) was embellished by both the nationality of the parents AND that they were tenants. If the parents had been English freeholders, would that have even been mentioned? Everyone can draw their own conclusions there.

Yes, I agree on how misleading terminology has caused confusion. Medical practitioners spend every day explaining what is often complex science, in simpler terms to help patients understand what is happening to them. Government however, has no such skill. Plus, their considerations go beyond solely what is happening epidemiologically, and they often assume the public are too stupid to understand complex science. That is a whole other thread though :D But to answer your question specifically. You can see from the FOI replies that you link to, that there is a big drop off in positives at the 40-45 cycle point. So the logic there is, that is the number of cycles needed to catch everyone with any trace of SARS cov 2. It is a matter of being thorough, and taking no risks, over any notion of flawed science. And that is not to undermine the other valid point you make about people's livelihoods and wellbeing. Those things are serious issues too. That unfortunately has no answer in a pandemic. There is more government could do to take care of people through that, but again, subject for a different thread.

Robbie, here are some points for you to consider..... First of all, people who are so ill they die are not returning 'false positive' test results. There are several ways to test patients for the virus, and trust me when I say that a person who is in an ICU is not returning a 'false positive'. Why? Because by that point, the viral load is so high that it is undeniable as covid, or any other virus or bacteria in play. One of the most offensive ideas out there has been doubt cast on the numbers of hospital deaths. So let's not repeat that here. Now, have another think about what you are arguing. 'False positives' do not increase spread of the virus or the numbers of people ending up in hospital. If you believe in the existence of prevalent 'false positives', then that should also tell you that this virus is in fact, more deadly than you think, making the argument for more testing and isolating, not less. On PCR tests, the number of cycles isn't the reason for false positives. To be clear, there is no such thing as a false positive (and I will come back to that). Once the machine finds a trace of SARS cov 2, it stops and beeps. That means most positive results are identified before they get anywhere near 40 cycles. So this comes down to a question of viral load. If your positive test results from a trace detection, then how contagious are you in reality? In other words, every positive result finds a trace of SARS cov 2 RNA (ie no such thing as a false positive), but that trace can be detected in the first cycle as easily as it can be in the 40th. So at present, the policy is to er on the side of caution, when it comes to any person showing traces of the virus. And the number of cycles just makes sure that every person carrying any trace of the virus can be found. New surges have come after releasing lockdown restrictions. The virus has already mutated in a more infectious form. That could only happen while the virus is still spreading. What if it mutates into a form that starts making younger people seriously ill (as seems to be the case with the new variant in Brazil)? I would worry less about false positives but the surge that is now testing the NHS to its limits. Any idea that life can return to normal, if only we don't count low RNA counts, is naive. That ship sailed some time ago. Look to Taiwan if you want to see what needed to happen to avoid a lockdown. We never did any of it.

Trump may be out of office but the legacy remains. There is a lot of work for America to do if those divisions are ever going to narrow. I watched the inauguration after show with some discomfort if I am honest. Celebrity after celebrity, most of them wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and thought, just what is going to change here? The problem is the notion of elitism and Biden is never going to reach those millions who bought into Trump in that way. The radical thing to do would have been an after show led by ordinary people, something that at least tried to represent ordinary America. And that really is the question isn't it? Trump may have been part of that elite, and indeed the swamp itself, but he at least raised the question of draining it. Public consciousness has changed. Virtual signalling from wealthy elites isn't going to work anymore.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once you use the word snowflake you lose > credibility and sympathy. Agreed. This is a tricky situation and I think you need to be careful here. Some children are difficult to get into the right routine and there can often be very good reasons for that, such as undiagnosed ADHD or other conditions that do not become apparent until a bit older. The Parents may also be dealing with stress of their own. I doubt any magistrate would evict a tenant because their toddler doesn't go to bed at 7, so unless you are expecting the landlord to issue a threat of eviction, not sure what the point of going to their landlord would be. I personally wouldn't do it over a toddler. Conversions are also notorious for poor sound barriers between dwellings, as you rightly acknowledge. In normal times, the parents could seek professional help in getting their toddler into a routine if possible etc, but we are not in normal times, we are in the middle of a pandemic. You are also assuming they haven't already tried many things, and it sounds to me as though they were being honest with you over being difficult.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Singapore > > Yet nobody here seems keen to follow No hope of emulating any of those countries when so many people can be bothered to wear a mask even for the short amount of time they spent in a shop or on a bus.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. You make the same mistake as everyone else in neglecting the fact that many more people fill hospitals because they are too sick to recover without specialist help. Many of those people are in other ages groups. In fact, the bigger age group in hospital with covid at the moment are those in the 30s and 40's. And that is the problem with this debate. Covid is far more complex than people over 70 dying. Letting the virus spread freely, even excluding the over 70's, means tens of millions of people suddenly becoming infected. Even a tiny fraction of that needing hospital care would overwhelm the NHS.

TheCat, odd that you should use racism to counter a point made about Q Anon and Pandemic hoax theories. Racism exists. Q Anon and Hoax theories are fantasy. So not a good analogy.

Useful links Ianr. The expectation at present is that around 70 percent of those offered the vaccine will take it. Another 20 percent are expected to follow once they see the vaccine is safe over the longer term. So even is the end result is 80 percent vaccinated for example, that would be a good result, especially if the take up is near 100 percent in vulnerable groups. Beyond that, it is a question of lasting efficacy and whether or not the virus significantly mutates.

Social media ceased to be a go to place for sensible nuanced debate some time ago. JHB currently has the morning slot on Talk Radio, the radio equivalent of Fox News. 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. Nuanced sensible debate doesn't because it can't cut through lowest common denominator tripe that plays on people's emotions over intellect. That shift is precisely what elevated people like Farage and other rabble rousers into the mainstream People who deliberately shift the lines between propaganda and truth. The cost is increasing numbers of people being sucked into cult like belief systems, like Q Anon, and Pandemic hoax theories. That is exactly why you end up with a President who convinces tens of millions of people (including some of his own senators) into believing an election was stolen. The consequences of that don't need spelling out. 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.

Fitzgeraldo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If I take my car to drive out of London (say to > Kent) for a walk, does this contravene the > regulations? Yes it does contravene the regulations, and yes, police may well use anpr to catch you. ?200 fine if caught, but it is not about the fine, it is about doing your part by sticking to the rules.