dsr-burnley

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.

Very blunt instruments. Next door to me are two pretty much identical back-to-back 200 year old terraces. One has a rating of E with potential to go to B. The other has a rating of F with potential to go to E. Makes no sense.

YouTube. I've seen it twice, though skipped it the second time.

If they are giving them away, then I'm interested. Where is that deal available from?

One thing I noticed was that almost every time they got the ball, the trapped it first and then passed it. No one-touch football. Always give the defence time to react. Even when they beat the man and get to the byline, it's "don't cross it now, we might lose the ball, come back inside and wait for a better chance".

The reason "woke" is used about Emma Watson, for example, in her continued spat with JK Rowling, is because she careful to be seen as being on the right side of tolerance and justice for minorities, while simultaneously being willing to destroy the idea of women's refuges for women who are frightened of men - thereby being perceived by those who call her "woke" to be on the wrong side. It looks hypocritical. (Obviously she is an extreme example because of her obvious hypocrisy in being opposed to everything JK Rowling has seen and done except for the aspects where she can profit by it. If she has indeed given her entire income from Harry Potter to charity, then I withdraw the accusation of hypocrisy.)

And when prices drop so that people who have to buy their own car and haven't a driveway can make those savings too, then electric vehicles will really become popular. Not yet, though. (That's not a dig at you. Good luck to you. Make the most of it while it lasts.)

The arrangement of who goes where depends entirely on which 4 teams get in. As far as I can see, if the third places in group C and D both qualify (and they have), then we will get Netherlands in every scenario except if 3rd places groups E and F both qualify. This is possible. Croatia (group B) are already out, so we need both 3rd place group E to get 3 points and a goal difference no worse than -2 - this is likely - and we need 3rd place group F to get 4 points 9snce they can't get 3). This would involve one of Czechia and Georgia winning. In that case we would play 3rd in group E. https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28736877/euro-2024-last-16-third-place-explained-england/

Should this have been posted on the Group C thread?

They both fell over. They both made contact, they both fell over, do they both get a free kick? You can't apply the rule that says "there was contact, both players fell over, so it's a penalty" - you have to judge whose fault was the contact.

I read recently (can't remember where, so no link) that in the last 15 years in America, there have been 6 passenger deaths in scheduled flight plane crashes. 3 were in one of those tiny planes in Alaska.

Brewers? You mean I'm not the only Brewers fan in this country?

Thanks. I hope they're better than the semi-automatic ones on my Corsa!

Sounds lethal. I presume the windscreen wipers come on automatically when it rains? It's surely impossible to have the situation where you run into a sudden shower, you can't see as clearly as you should, so you have to look down at a touchscreen to put the wipers on. (Or can other people work touchscreens without looking at them? I can't, but then I don't use a smartphone so perhaps I don't get the practice.)

Good luck if you can do it. If I didn't have to steer and drive, I would definitely fall asleep. (Or hopefully, stop for a nap. Which I already need to do sometimes. But having to think about driving is definitely a help in alertness.)

That's getting trickier with the new "double charge for empty properties" rules, not to mention the crafty (aka dishonest) system whereby HMRC charge interest on the value of the property before you even get probate and the right to put it on the market. Prices for keeping properties empty are getting more expensive.

Why do the likes of Man City care anyway? Does it really matter if Man City 1st team are playing in Europe in the same week as their reserves are playing in the League Cup?

Useful tip for anyone who wants to buy a toy nursery rhyme character and doesn't know which shop to go to. It's widely known that Lidl has almost cornered the market (Lidl Bo Peep, Lidl Miss Muffet, Lidl Jack Horner and so on) but for Humpty Dumpty, you should always go to Aldi. Why? Because there, he comes with Aldi king's horses and Aldi king's men.

I haven't read the whole thread, only the first 3 and last 3 pages, so I may be making points that have already been made. But for one thing, there can't be a problem with ticket touts with a season ticket card. Nobody is going to pass their card to a stranger for asingle match because they wouldn't be sure about getting it back. Season tickets lent out, would be to family and friends only, and more so - family and friends who you trust to behave and not get chucked out and ticket removed. And there is the problem with restricting ticket transfers. How many of us (at our respective clubs) first went to a match by borrowing someone else's tickets? Not me, because my mother was a supporter long before I was born (long enough ago that she wondered if she was excluded from the "ladies and boys" half price tickets!). But I've been going on Turf Moor for 40 years, and I know of 5 (no exaggeration) people who are now season ticket holders who can be traced to a ticket borrowed off my family. Three who borrowed tickets directly from me, and two more who now attend with those people. If you stop this sort of freebie "trial run", so to speak, you're denying yourself a lot of potential future customers. It's all very well saying that "we have plenty of supporters, let's keep it a closed shop" but the time may come when you (or we or any other club) don't have plenty of supporters and would regret having turned them away. Incidentally, one of the issues they had at Burnley several years ago when they tried to make tickets non-transferable, was that they were surprised how many of them are shared. Shift workers who miss half a season but share with someone else who can't / won't attend every game. Parents with shared custody of fanatical child fans, or parents who aren't interested in football but take turns to accompany their fanatical children. Brighton (among others) have put an absolute stop to that sort of sharing, because if someone turns up with the wrong i.d. the ticket is banned for 6 months. What are Leicester doing about that?