Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s cognitive condition is increasingly being question

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s cognitive condition is increasingly being questioned

In the history of live television interviews there has never been one this awkward, not ever. ? pic.twitter.com/8S6bChlaTO

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    First!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    He's the only one in my book who is red. So this would be good news.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

    "Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    FPT
    FF43 said:

    I agree that there is no call at the moment for a government of national unity. I think the crisis does require politicians to adapt to be challenging but constructive.

    Parliament should continue to meet by Zoom, like the rest of us are doing.

    If MPs had any sense (so it won't happen) they would right now be doing the following:

    1) Preparing an Act to allow them to meet and vote remotely at the discretion of the Speaker in a time of national emergency;

    2) Including in the act a clause to suspend the requirement for a quorum and instead saying that members from both sides and a minimum of three parties must have voted on it under those circumstances;

    3) Declared a Regency with the Duke of Cambridge as regent so the elderly royals including Her Maj and Prince Charles can be safely locked down and essential business still transacted.

    Act to be reviewed after one month, meeting remotely.

    But it won't happen.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    edited March 2020
    Floater said:

    Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

    "Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

    That makes things easier - and after all, people will be doing much less driving.

    It would be immensely useful to know if the same applied to gas safety inspections in buy to let properties. Does anybody know?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @Jonathan
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    Not quite that bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

    But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    That seems fair enough. We've already agreed that MPs shouldn't vote on their own salaries; seems pretty clear they also shouldn't vote on whether to make themselves redundant.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    eadric said:

    If you think I’m prone to the occasional bout of corona-pessimism

    Nobody has ever, ever, accused you of that.

    In the same way nobody has ever accused Theresa May of being slightly inflexible or Boris Johnson of being a little bit dodgy.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    Not quite that bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

    But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.
    thanks for the clarification
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    I've greened up (Though not cashed out) on this markets the future is very uncertain, particularly given the age of all the current runners.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?
    I don't know - suspect that people haven't done this work yet
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    On topic: agreed and I have just cashed out. Medium sized profit if it's anyone near the top of the betting. Jay Inslee and Kirsten Gillibrand are now my best results.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

    It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Biden's still my best result, but I have hedged him for the nomination so green either way (thanks Mr. B for the tip, once again).
  • It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Is that clip so damaging? He looks as if he feels the way I feel about Trump, and . the you-go-first silence in the conversation is awkward, sure, but it happens to everyone and I think the interviewer is bad at filling the gap, which is her job. It isn't good for Biden, sure, but not a game changer. Whoever Amy is is overegging the pudding.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,043
    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
  • Floater said:

    Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

    "Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

    I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    I had assumed that the rate of replication of the Coronavirus (a word which rather depressingly now appears on my autocorrect) was relatively slow, hence the long delay between infection and symptoms. Is that wrong?
    Do longer delayed (Between infection and symptons) cases have better outcomes ?
  • 327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    Can't say it's most awkward TV interview ever to be honest.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    On topic: I was contemplating the same bet this morning but am quite red on Biden. One question is the timing of Biden's withdrawal, assuming he does step down. The Betfair market is on who is nominated at the convention in July, not who will face Trump in November. It may be the Dems' men in grey suits will have an eye on the calendar to stop Biden without enabling Sanders.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,038
    Harris is 170 for nominee.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    eadric said:

    kamski said:

    The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

    It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

    Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

    eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.
    it says UK has 20, so I think we just ignore the whole critical column.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited March 2020

    Floater said:

    Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

    "Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

    I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.
    I've let my brother know. He's a mobile mechanic that operates in and around Coventry so if anyone here lives near there and needs their vehicle fixing he can do so without using up your daily trip out ;)
  • FPT

    I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

    "Demand has been exceptionally high".

    A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

    Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,043
    eadric said:

    kamski said:

    The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

    It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

    Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

    eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.
    I think it says we only have 20!

    Basically just as death is the only certainty in life, deaths are (sadly) the only half accurate measure we have in tracking this pandemic - and if that is manipulated, measured differently, or subject to different underlying causes, then we have no measurement at all!

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,612
    edited March 2020

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

    1) 40-50
    2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
    3) Healthy
    4) Able to speak
    5) Politically actually a Democrat
    6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
    7) Not a re-tread

    Apparently, no I can't have that...
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited March 2020
    I don't think that clip shows cognitive decline in Biden at all. He's saying what lots of people are saying - Trump is not acting presidential, he's up and down like a yoyo. Then he tries to row back on his words, no doubt thinking it is too personal. All very understandable.

    The interviewer causes confusion " No you go ahead" etc when he's finished his point.

    No doubt Biden's enemies will try to use clips like this, possibly doctored (I'm not suggesting that one is). But many people will relate to Biden.

    I'm green on him and I'm not laying any.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    do the democrats really want to lose that much ?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    IshmaelZ said:

    eadric said:

    kamski said:

    The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

    It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

    Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

    eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.
    it says UK has 20, so I think we just ignore the whole critical column.
    They can only report the info they have - I only rely on the totals and death columns now
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,043
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
    Thanks Charles - v helpful!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Can't say it's most awkward TV interview ever to be honest.

    I thought that - Diane Abbott for one could be excruciating
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    eadric said:

    kamski said:

    The curve of daily new cases looks like it might be already flattening in Germany:
    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/

    It seems a bit early to me, it could be just a blip. I'm also hearing reports that both swabs and chemicals needed for testing are in short supply (as well as the labs operating at capacity), so the number of tests might be going down, or at least stopped increasing. Without testing numbers it's harder to see what's happening.

    Can we trust the data on Germany on worldometer?

    eg it still says Germany has only 23 critical cases.
    We're only testing very severe cases here though, are they checking more mild cases ?
  • It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,612

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287

    FPT

    I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

    "Demand has been exceptionally high".

    A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

    Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...
    Wine society is closed to deliveries.. I found that out yesterday.. sign of the times.. Denbies deliver but want £11 to deliver
  • Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?

    Allegedly they are going to set up a portal where businesses can apply for the money. Can I suggest that they need to do it *quickly*...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited March 2020
    £4000 of lays on Biden since this article went up just now.

    Edit/£5000
    Edit2/£6000, now 1.16
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
    "Respiratory viruses tend to infect and replicate in two places: In the nose and throat, where they are highly contagious, or lower in the lungs, where they spread less easily but are much more deadly."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    Land of the free; home of the brave.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    Given I have cashed out I am intensely relaxed about the nominee now.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    Not quite that bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

    But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.
    They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    Land of the free; home of the brave.
    Well, apparently not if those two cowardly authoritarians are the best on offer.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited March 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:

    Vehicle owners in Britain will be granted a six-month exemption from MoT testing. The Department for Transport said in a statement: "All cars, vans and motorcycles which usually would require an MoT test will be exempted from needing a test from 30 March.

    "Vehicles must be kept in a roadworthy condition, and garages will remain open for essential repair work. Drivers can be prosecuted if driving unsafe vehicles."

    I posted a few weeks ago that I was told this was going to happen.
    I've let my brother know. He's a mobile mechanic that operates in and around Coventry so if anyone here lives near there and needs their vehicle fixing he can do so without using up your daily trip out ;)
    Do you also have some chinese back packs for sale?😀
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    That interview only looks awkward because of the transmission delay between the two people speaking to each other.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

    1) 40-50
    2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
    3) Healthy
    4) Able to speak
    5) Politically actually a Democrat
    6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
    7) Not a re-tread

    Apparently, no I can't have that...
    Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

    8) From a swing state

    Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,612
    Endillion said:

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

    1) 40-50
    2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
    3) Healthy
    4) Able to speak
    5) Politically actually a Democrat
    6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
    7) Not a re-tread

    Apparently, no I can't have that...
    Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

    8) From a swing state

    Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.
    The swing state thing is massively over-rated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Does anyone know how on earth the Government is going to administer Furlough payments?

    They will swing the crack team of administrators they have working on Universal Credit onto the job?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,043

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited March 2020

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

    Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
    The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

    I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

    In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

    Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    JohnLoony said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    Not quite that bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

    But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.
    They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.
    I thought that using the electoral roll was brought in under Cameron? Certainly when I was working on the 2011 census I was told census data was used for electoral purposes. As I recall, it was a controversial change for precisely the reasons you state, e.g. those in constituencies with large numbers of migrants would be adversely impacted.

    I know the Wikipedia article I cited says something different but then, Wikipedia also says Richard III was the rightful king of England.

    Hyufd would probably know.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
    This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    If I'm claiming universal credit because I've lost my job, will I have to go in for a face to face interview, or is everything being done online now? Thanx.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.
    This is your problem - if Trump is your benchmark then Basil Brush would be a shoe-in!
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911

    FPT

    I can see why Majestic wanted to stay open, given this was what the Wine Society told its members:

    "Demand has been exceptionally high".

    A company supplying both wine and home gym equipment right now would clean up.

    Wine / beer / spirits in a squeezy bottle so that you can sip as you run. A literal killing to be made...
    Wine society is closed to deliveries.. I found that out yesterday.. sign of the times.. Denbies deliver but want £11 to deliver
    I had that message too, followed by another asking me if I wanted to cancel my order. Not sure why deliveries need to be cancelled but it's up to them I suppose. Have got a delivery from elsewhere now. The thought of 4 months locked in without one doesn't bear thinking about!!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    IanB2 said:

    £4000 of lays on Biden since this article went up just now.

    Edit/£5000
    Edit2/£6000, now 1.16

    Bet on Biden for nominee for a 15% tax free return in four months. Not exactly free money but excellent value.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    ydoethur said:

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.
    But if you were looking at a body that does fucking stupidity REALLY well, its the Dems....
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

    Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)
    I'm not an expert, but I think doubling might be an unhelpful term. It implies you're thinking about cell division via mitosis, which is not how I understand viruses to replicate. My memories of high school biology are that they instead turn cells into virus factories which then spit out vast numbers of copies of the virus. So exponential increase with parameter >> 2, in which case the difference between 32 and 1 at the beginning is negligible regardless of replication speed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056

    Endillion said:

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

    1) 40-50
    2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
    3) Healthy
    4) Able to speak
    5) Politically actually a Democrat
    6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
    7) Not a re-tread

    Apparently, no I can't have that...
    Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

    8) From a swing state

    Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.
    The swing state thing is massively over-rated.
    Looking at the USA map of cases, while there are some obvious hot spots, it does look a fairly even spread across blue, red and swing states when allowing for population density.

    https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1242700623704817664?s=19
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    To select Clinton once may be regarded as a misfortune, to choose her a second time would just be fucking stupidity.
    But if you were looking at a body that does fucking stupidity REALLY well, its the Dems....
    TBF, in this country Labour chose Corbyn twice.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    Joe Biden is a real concern. Especially because as I feared, and predicted, Trump is getting a boost from the crisis. It's not hurting him, it's helping. "War Leader" and all that crap. Before this kicked off he was IMO almost certainly going to lose. Now, I am not so sure. I can see him winning now. I just hate typing that but it has to be faced. As for Joe, if he is not up to the campaign the Dems need to swap him out. Who for? HRC? Cuomo? I suppose Bernie has the best claim. God knows. But anyway, bottom line, pre-corona I was not worried about the Maximum Moron inflicting a 2nd term upon us but now I am very worried indeed. And if that is an outcome of the virus it will be amongst its very worst. I value Trump's removal as being worth X premature deaths where the only uncertainty about X is whether it is a big number or a VERY big number.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
    This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
    Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Ok, it looks like Democrats got a pretty good deal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

    Bin lorries are still working in Cannock Chase as of this morning. When they stop we will have a big problem, especially in the major urban areas.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Biden may be struggling, but how would he cope with the return of Covid19 if he became President.

    Trump like other leaders is under huge pressure, and some of them might not cope mentally or physically with the stress of dealing with Covid19. The Dutch Health Minister stepped down last week.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124



  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
    The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

    I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

    In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

    Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.
    Thanks. Someone who does know what he is talking about!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    If people have seen the Oxford paper that was in the FT and wondered what the hell all the maths meant. A decent explanation of how these models generally work.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrp40ck3WpI
  • Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

    Our general waste went yesterday, but the garden waste on Monday was cancelled. I guess they have to carry on due to the public health issues that will arise if it's left to pile up.
  • ABZABZ Posts: 441
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    Viruses typically replicate in the bloodstream. The issue with the lungs is a symptom (it's ARDS, but not sure of the underlying mechanistic cause. Would assume it is part of an inflammatory cascade)
    The viral entry site seems to be the ACE2 receptor, which is found predominately in the lungs, but also gut and heart.

    I don't think red cells express ACE2 receptors so how can the bloodstream be the main source of viral replication?

    In addition red cells do not have nuclei, and are not equipped to produce RNA replication or viral proteins.

    Viruses may well be distributed by bloodstream, but I cannot see them reproducing there.
    ACE2 is also highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.06122.pdf) - an observation that is being followed up at present.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,056
    Endillion said:

    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    It might be starting with 32 rather than 1 (a cough in your face). What is the rate of replication? Does it double every minute, every 5 minues, every hour? How long does it take for your immune system to kick in and build up?

    Let's be honest. None of us know what we are talking about. We are grasping for analogies and explanations (eg why do medics get hit so much more?)
    I'm not an expert, but I think doubling might be an unhelpful term. It implies you're thinking about cell division via mitosis, which is not how I understand viruses to replicate. My memories of high school biology are that they instead turn cells into virus factories which then spit out vast numbers of copies of the virus. So exponential increase with parameter >> 2, in which case the difference between 32 and 1 at the beginning is negligible regardless of replication speed.
    Yes, that is correct.

    It all depends on the race between viral replication and host immune response.

    The fatal thing though is the ARDS, triggered by the virus rather than directly induced by replication. There are many parts to the molecular biology of this that we need to understand.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    TGOHF666 said:
    That will make them popular. Are we sure that it isn’t a spoof?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    TGOHF666 said:
    This is so unhelpful to the cause. What on earth are they thinking?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    It’s going to be Hillary Clinton isn’t it?

    Can't they install Andrew Cuomo? He is doing a stellar job in New York State. Not just in actions but in the way he communicates. Compare him directly to Trump and he'd force the Donald into hysterical hissy fits.
    There's a great argument for co-opting Cuomo. Anyone who has shown some gumption for dealing with Covid-19 just HAS to be a better candidate for President than Trump.

    Although, anyone with a receipt for some hand sanitizer is a better candidate....
  • The .gov website says that MOTs are only suspended for 3 months, maybe it's not been updated yet.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,287
    edited March 2020
    deleted
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    Government or business confusion. My dentist is closed although gov.uk list dental surgeries as an exception. Similarly, HMG wants online retail to flourish during this crisis but several delivery services are being withdrawn. Restaurants were urged to switch to takeaway but instead many existing takeaway chains, including McDonalds and KFC, have closed.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close-guidance
  • Is anyone's bins still being collected? I know the public tips are closed.

    Ours just have been
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
    This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
    Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.
    I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

    Not going to hazard a guess about your father.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    One for @malcolmg

    On this day in 1306, Robert the Bruce was crowned King of Scots.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
    This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
    Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.
    I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

    Not going to hazard a guess about your father.
    Dairy farmer
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    Endillion said:

    327million people, and it all boils down to Trump or Biden?

    This. I have said this before. I asked my Democrat relatives for a candidate who is -

    1) 40-50
    2) Preferably a former Governor or Senator
    3) Healthy
    4) Able to speak
    5) Politically actually a Democrat
    6) Not wholly owned by Goldman Sachs.
    7) Not a re-tread

    Apparently, no I can't have that...
    Expand the age range a bit, and there's loads of candidates. The killer is:

    8) From a swing state

    Which reduces the options to Amy Klobuchar.
    The swing state thing is massively over-rated.
    In terms of actual importance, or perceived importance? It did seem to harm Kamala Harris to be painted as a West Coast liberal who couldn't beat Trump because she didn't understand the Rust Belt. It's also undeniably true that her campaign was about as uninspiring as it's possible to be, but she was undoubtedly a decent candidate on paper.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    felix said:




    Saying that his thing that is actually happening under a Conservative government would happen under Corbyn is not the killer joke most righties think it is.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Luckyguy1983 @Malmesbury

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    The original Facebook post repeated used the phrase "VIRAL LOAD" (in capitals). It was wrong. The NHS advice is driven by probability of infection - repeated encounters with the virus increase the chance of catching the bug.

    FWIW, I'm not a scientist or a doctor. But I have spent 25 years working with, advising and sitting on the boards of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. I have some familiarity with the basics.

    This is interesting info Charles. How does it work then? My basic understanding of a virus is that it ventures in, attaches itself to its desired cells, and turns those cells into replicators of itself. It would seem to stand to reason that if you are exposed to more virus, it attaches itself to more cells, those more cells all replicate, and the virus is several stages more advanced than it would otherwise be? What you're describing sounds more like a light switch, or a sperm meeting an egg. I am happy to defer to your experience on this subject, but at first glance it seems counterintuitive.
    It's not that it doesn't happen, it's that the rate of replication is so fast that it's irrelevant.
    Yes - imagine the replication as a tree - say you start with 1 cell, then x cells then x * x cells....

    Unless you replace the 1 with a truly staggering number of cells, you won't be starting much further "up" the tree.
    Thank you, that is a helpful explanation. What about the effect different 'geographical areas' of the body? To reduce this to ludicrously simple terms, let's say Sufferer A is mildly exposed to a virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on one of his lungs. Sufferer B is heavily exposed to the virus, and it successfully begins to replicate on both of his lungs. Surely sufferer A is in an advantageous position relative to Sufferer B? He has one tree, where sufferer B has two.
    The simple answer is that is simply moving up the tree - starting with 2, instead of 1.

    The true answer would depend on things like saturation - how quickly does the infection get to all the cells in the neighbourhood, so runs out of new cells to infect.

    At this point you need a highly trained clinical researcher.
    That would seem to indicate that excepting cases (appreciate this is most) where the virus is multiplying in the bloodstream, there may still be a mechanism whereby heavy exposure (or 'viral load) can influence not just the likelihood, but the severity of a viral infection.
    This virus is replicating in the nose and lungs, not in the bloodstream, according to the Washington Post - which seems to be intuitively right, since you might as well breed in the place you live and work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/23/coronavirus-isnt-alive-thats-why-its-so-hard-kill/
    Did you mean to say breed? I think breeding in your workplace is only done in some highly specialised professions. Like my father’s.
    I am assuming viruses work from home, setting us an example.

    Not going to hazard a guess about your father.
    Dairy farmer
    Ah!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    edited March 2020
    TGOHF666 said:
    Would somebody carrying the virus please find every member of Extinction Rebellion and breathe very hard in their faces?

    That might engage what passes for their brains before opening their outsize gobs in future.
  • B&Q have closed while they decide what they are going to sell, Screwfix only doing click and collect for essentials only. That makes sense, as B&Q especially would have been a magnet for bored isolators.
    I think B&Q will open up with just their Tradepoint entrances operating.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    ydoethur said:

    JohnLoony said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    FPT @Jonathan

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF666 said:
    And so it has started. They can't help themselves.
    To be fair this has been suggested well before the current crisis.

    There is no reason why partisan politicians should be voting on recommendations of the Boundary Commission as they have a conflict.
    You need to sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and think about what you're saying.
    I know exactly what I am saying.

    MPs vote to set the principles (no of seats, variance etc)

    Boundary Commission does its work. Lots of input from various interested parties at this stage.

    Final report laid before parliament.

    It should be implemented automatically. Otherwise politicians with an interest can repeatedly frustrate the law. That why (I think) we ran the last general election on the 2001 constituency boundaries.
    Not quite that bad:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

    But the information used was from the 2001 census, so it was nine years out of date at the time.
    They don't use numbers from the census to determine the electorates of parliamentary constituencies, they use the electorates at the time of review. Using census figures would include children and some adults who aren't eligible to vote.
    I thought that using the electoral roll was brought in under Cameron? Certainly when I was working on the 2011 census I was told census data was used for electoral purposes. As I recall, it was a controversial change for precisely the reasons you state, e.g. those in constituencies with large numbers of migrants would be adversely impacted.

    I know the Wikipedia article I cited says something different but then, Wikipedia also says Richard III was the rightful king of England.

    Hyufd would probably know.
    Polls indicate 64% approval levels for Richard III when compared to a King Edward potato so yes true that Richard III is currently the rightful king of England.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    edited March 2020
    JohnLoony said:

    That interview only looks awkward because of the transmission delay between the two people speaking to each other.

    Nice to see you back posting, John.

    The voice of sanity.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    What we wouldn't give for somebody like Bill Gates in charge of the US at the moment.
This discussion has been closed.