dsr-burnley

Yep, that's democracy. Given the choice between democracy and some form of dictatorship, democracy (in the western world at least) is preferred.

I misunderstood your post at first, and thought you were hoping for over a thousand dead. Now I see that you want to kill "only" half a dozen or so.

Whether they were vulnerable has to come into it, unfortunately. Covid was not a matter of saving as many lives as possible with no negative impact on the rest of society. Even the NHS has to make calculations, whether formal or gut feeling, in allocating resources to the ones who will get most benefit. Case in point - if they have one heart and two people who could benefit from the transplant, then all else being equal it will go to the 10 year old not the 80 year old. The age and vulnerability of the potential recipients does count. What the drawn-out enquiry ought to do (but probably won't) is to assess whether the positive effects of lockdown outweighed the negative, and whether it was the right thing to do on each of the four times it was proposed or implemented. When it comes to excess deaths, it is at least possible to compare the "worth" of a life lost to covid compared with a life lost later to undiagnosed cancer, and hopefully a fair effort can be made at reckoning the numbers. It's harder to evaluate the worth of a life lost to covid compared with the effect on children of missing close to 2 years' school. Or for that matter the worth of a life lost to covid with the worth of the lives of the old people who spent a year or two in miserable loneliness and died anyway. But it's all relevant.

The logic that the virus disappeared because it burned out, is false logic. The virus didn't disappear. It's still here. Even in China, where their version of lockdown literally meant locking all infected people away, they couldn't stop the spread. And in this country, there were far too many people moving around to stop the spread. The whole food chain, from farming to manufacture to shops to delivery, ran more or less as normal. Hospitals obviously kept going and spread the virus. Manufacturing kept going, mostly. I've seen lockdown described as rich people self-isolating at home while poor people fetched them stuff, and there is enough truth in that to put the kibosh on any idea of eliminating the virus by stopping it spreading.

4 Burnley 1 Accrington Stanley 1 Rochdale 1 Blackburn Rovers. There are others who claim allegiance to "bigger" clubs but don't go to matches. They don't count.

The world rankings take into account the standard of the opposition. A team that draws with Denmark, say, gets more credit than one than beats Bhutan.

One hopes they have learned that preparedness is futile. All they can do is stock up on medicines. Trying to stop the virus from spreading is a complete waste of time - everyone caught it within a couple of years anyway.

It's a stretch to say that we can only know if science is wrong by "reiterative applications of the scientific process". Sometimes we can know that it's wrong because the expected results don't happen - for example, we know that covid doesn't kill children en masse because it didn't - it killed fewer than RSV does annually. And we know that eating hamburgers did not cause mass vCJD in the UK because mass vCJD did not happen. One of the problems with science is that it is perceived to be over-changeable in some fields. For example, whether or not eggs are good for you has flipped probably four times in my lifetime. And some of this isn't the fault of "science", I know, it's the fault of people with vested interests in diet and advertising, but successive governments have thrown their weight behind possibly dodgy science and that appears to validate it. Sometimes people simply reject "science", as stated above, because they think "science" is wrong. Example - my mother's first pregnancy, in 1959, she was cursed with dreadful morning sickness. She was offered this new drug thalidomide which scientists said was wonderful, and she turned it down. It is often wrong to ignore the science, but not always. (That's not to say climate change should be ignored, just to explain why it often is.)

Neither. You still haven't been forgiven for the 2p in the pound to St. John's Ambulance, I'm afraid. This will just compound it. (Whether the 2p to St John's is strictly accurate or is an exaggeration, I don't know. The stink survives even if that bit isn't factual.)

The problem was that the joke got too ambitious and tried to merge with the Two Ronnies Swedish lessons. "We F N 10 E M".

West Ham getting a penalty for Lord knows what against Villa shows that VAR doesn't necessarily help.

I agree that China and India were bound to be behind the curve re. fossil fuels. It would be completely unreasonable for the UK (and other rich nations) to expect the poorer, expanding nations to remain poor to preserve our lifestyle. They were bound to expand fossil fuel usage dramatically. It's the tone of the Guardian article that irks me. That newspaper seems to have an ambition to fit the character in Gilbert and Sullivan's little list song, who praises every country but his own.

If only the Chinese could match the UK's record on cutting down fossil fuels. You'd think from the tone of the Guardian article that the UK wasn't interested in cutting fossil fuel power generation. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-from-fossil-fuels-drops-to-lowest-level-since-1957/

Perhaps they haven't even decided whether they want to move, or where they want to move to. If they can't find something better than what they have now, at a price they can afford, they may not want to sell their own.

Gudmondsson (in that clip) and Bellamy (assistant manager) both left the club, both out of contract, as soon as the season ended. After Kompany left, both came back (though Bellamy has now left again, to manage Wales.) I was a supporter of Kompany for long enough, but the more I hear now, the happier I am that he isn't here any more. (And we got £12m transfer fee!)

Odobert outpaced his defender, but Brownhill doesn't outpace anyone. Both passes were inch perfect. Besides, didn't some bloke called Vardy score several of his many goals with the same sort of move?

My mother had probable covid in January but had no more than a cough, followed by a couple of falls and telephone 111 advised us to go to hospital (though not by ambulance as there weren't any!) It was pneumonia and we got there in time. She's 91 and fully vaccined. If you haven't had your chest looked at, then I think you should. Perhaps a course of antibiotics might help. You won't be still infectious.

Why a cheap one? If it's an accepted principle that the club can force you to buy something that you don't want to go and watch football, then why not force you to spend a fortune rather than just the odd £100 per year? I'd be interested to know what they are going to do about shared tickets. (Which they found at Burnley, when they threatened to enforce the no transfers rule a few years back, and abandoned when they realised how many people did it.) If, for example, parents don't know which of them will be taking their kid to the match until late doors, does the club tell them "we don't want your kind supporting us" or do they provide a free workaround?

The danger of there being no classes is not a valid reason to stop all classes. It's not logical. There was good reason to close schools early on in the pandemic, because they didn't know it was negligibly dangerous for children and they didn't know that children didn't pass it on easily. But they should have been able to spot far faster than they did, that closing schools wasn't needed.

You're putting far too much on the NHS people there. 1. It's possible to make a wrong decision without being incompetent. You can make the best decision possible with all the available evidence, and still be wrong. 2, For the average employee of any organisation, it's not their place to agree or disagree with a decision - simply to do it. It's not possible to have an organisation of half a million medical staff each making their own decisions on whether to treat covid as the problem above all else, or whether to treat it as a problem among all others. The organisation wouldn't function. It would be like the consultant treating his patient's cancer one way while the nurse makes his or her own decision to treat it a different way. It wouldn't, and couldn't, work. The decision is made at higher level, and people at lower levels have to implement it (even if they disagree).

I don't see why the NHS staff would share the blame. What's the average nurse supposed to do - refuse to treat covid patients and insist on treating cancer patients instead? One of the things people in power have to do is make decisions that will kill people. When it comes to stuff like this, or any other medical provision, or war, or even pensions and housing, they are going to make decisions that will cause the death of someone who would have lived with a different decision. They can't save every life, they have to make the decision one way or the other. What it seemed to me was that they were more or less solely concerned with covid to the exclusion of all else, and the "value" of the deaths they saved by the covid decisions were exceeded by the "value" of those lost. I wouldn't perhaps stretch ti to "incompetent", but I have no doubt that they should have done better in the second year of the pandemic.

Those aren't the only choices. What about the possibility that on day one of the pandemic, the NHS decision makers and staff didn't know all there was to know about covid and had to make guesses based on limited knowledge? There's no doubt that the decision makers were too slow to spot that children neither suffered from covid nor carried it, to any significant degree, which would have saved them 1 year of schooling at least. But, for example, it was reported that during 2020-21 there were more than 50,000 fewer cancer diagnoses than expected. But that came later. When the virus started, no-one knew what it would do and to claim that the people making the decision were incompetent, is unfair.

Are they saying that hydrogen can be produced emission-free, or are they just saying that once it has been produced, this vehicle doesn't create any further emissions?

The problem with locking down sooner would have been that that was flying in the face of the advice from SAGE. It would have been politically impossible to lock down before SAGE said it was the right thing to do.

There was never going to be any bounce, up or down, as a result of the election, because it was so obvious who was going to win. If there was to be any movement as a result of Labour coming to power (and it seems there wasn't, certainly not downwards) it would have been apparent during the campaign, not at the end of it.