Jump to content


  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by leicsmac

  1. but Vardy nets the rebound.
  2. VP: Pence is "proud of the administration's record on the environment and conservation and he says that air is historically clean". I would accuse the guy of being delusional but then he's a fundie so that's hardly a new thing.
  3. It's certainly possible that he could decide to take things to the limit. As you say, the margin between him and Biden will have a key part to play there - if it turns out Biden is actually ahead of him on election day as well as in mail-ins then he's toast, there's not much he can do from that. If it's closer and/or he's ahead on election day, however, all bets are off. That all being said, I can't see him actually properly subverting the democratic process - like, genuinely nicking the election through nullifying mail-in voting in the Supreme Court and winning solely because of t
  4. If what is being shown about winter is true, then a vaccine available asap is almost a matter of necessity.
  5. And now Stephen Miller has it, apparently. Well, that's conclusive proof of the non-human Covid contraction theory.
  6. It's all on whether the system holds or not. Personally, I think it will, but I have my doubts. Only needs one of those two - indeed, only needs one out of five from FL, PA, AZ, OH or NC.
  7. Both storage and renewable energy efficiency will continue to improve with places finally taking their development seriously. And it's not before time, either. This needs to happen around the world, not just in the UK, or just the developed world, for that matter.
  8. It doesn't have to be "instead", either - a combination of both Gen III/IV fission and various renewables would address the problems sustainably and well.
  9. Oh, don't worry. The natural world has a veritable plethora of ways to cause more of a dent in that rate - some of which are being most capably assisted by humans, of course. Oh, and the cute thing about it is that there only needs to be a certain amount of pressure put on a population where a resource is difficult to obtain and mankind might even well do much of the job for the Earth.
  10. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/ Latest figures - now 83-17 in Biden's favour. Possibly driven by: Texas - Trump + 2.8% (0.8% swing to Biden from last Friday) Iowa - Trump + 2.7% (0.4% swing to Trump) Georgia - Trump +0.8% (0.4% swing to Biden) North Carolina - Biden +1.2% (0.6% swing to Biden) Ohio - Biden +0.0% (0.6% swing to Trump) Florida - Biden + 1.8% (0.1% swing to Biden) Arizona - Biden + 2.9% (0.3% swing to Biden) Pennsylvania - Biden + 5.6% (0.5% swing to Biden) So not only is Trump not
  11. I'd hope for the same. Unfortunately, from what I can tell the same unsubstantiated stuff with a veneer of authority is being touted in quite a few other popular places too. A much shorter one. Perhaps a more informative one, though. Edit: actually thinking about it, it would be the same length. There wouldn't be people not contributing, it would just be better if they qualified their contributions.
  12. It's a shame, but it isn't any different to a lot of other threads I've read on the subject with pet conspiracy theories being floated here there and everywhere. I just wish that people would feel the need to qualify their remarks as unsubstantiated opinion rather than as fact, for the sake of people reading the thread who might buy into what they say.
  13. Well, right now the null hypothesis seems to be that doing things like that *does* bring harm, based on both local and global data - which is why I consider the burden of proof to be in that particular direction. In any case, I'm referring to the argument that "normal" business should resume rather than just the family visits talked about here, so it's a more general than individual argument. And to be specific, I'm asking for scientific proof that the government should change tack and (more importantly) that so doing would be either less or as damaging economically and socially th
  14. And (sorry for me repeating myself) cannot prove this to any burden of proof that such a decision would require.
  15. Way I see it, Churchill was right when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" and when he said " the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter".
  16. I was referring to Brazil, for the record.
  17. Pardon my cynicism, but with the current man in charge I'm not entirely sure it's a democracy either. I guess my point is that more people are perhaps dying of this there than are being recorded at all, rather than being incorrectly recorded. I'm not sure they have the infrastructure and manpower everywhere to keep that kind of detailed record, and so I'm entirely unsure of their overall case and death figure. I could well be wrong, though - that's just a hunch on my part.
  18. With all due respect to the authorities in Brazil, an awful lot of bodies might not be as difficult to hide (or at least not identify the cause) there as one might think.
  19. There are a myriad of reasons why the death rate in the UK seems to have slowed down at the present time - better treatment, a mutation, it hitting less vulnerable groups, or a combination thereof, just off the top of my head. It certainly doesn't have to be down to a dodgy PCR test. Perhaps I am wrong - it's certainly possible - but forgive me for thinking that I would like cast-iron scientific proof. Not talking heads, as astute as they may be, but verified, data-driven, peer-reviewed and verified proof, identifying exactly what factor is driving the lessened death figures and (m
  20. It shows no such thing (in the context of peer reviewed, serious literature anyway) and it's tiring to keep having to point this out when that proof is still not forthcoming and all the argument is based on is hearsay and innuendo. Maybe, maybe not. Again, we can't prove this. There's still way too much we don't know about this thing so I have no idea why people aren't inclined to be risk averse when the stakes are so high. Wait, actually I do know why - self-interest.
  21. Or, at least, one cannot prove that they wouldn't be higher, which really should render the whole discussion moot with so much at stake.
  22. I don't think so, not right now based on current evidence. But we're only going to know for sure in about five weeks.
  23. Fair point well made. However, I honestly don't think there are many floating voters left now, even with all of this happening. Most everyone has come down on one side or another.
  24. And the natural reply would be "perhaps not the guy that survived due to top-of-the-line healthcare but has 214,000 people (and counting) dead on his watch because he didn't take it seriously in the first place".
  25. I have, and I'm satisfied that the PCR test is good enough for at least telling if the Covid virus in any form (as opposed to an intact and infectious form) is within a patient, which works as at least a rough-and-ready diagnostic IMO. It would be nice to have a better and faster diagnostic for picking between different types of Covid in peoples bodies, but seeing as that isn't on the table right now the more risk averse strategy - assume everyone who has the virus within them is infectious - is fair enough. If anything, not being able to tell accurately who is and who isn't infect
  • Create New...