Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Being an Anti Vaxxer is something people indulge in when they’

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 22 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Being an Anti Vaxxer is something people indulge in when they’re middle-aged

One of the big concerns as we get closer to getting an effective Covid19 vaccine is that there will be a significant proportion of the population who refuse to take part. The influence of disgraced ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield still runs very deep and we’ve seen how significant public health campaigns like participation in the MMR vaccine by childrens have been seriously undermined.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    Pre-Covid, biggest impact of anti-vaxers was on their young children who are NOT as a rule vaccinated. A big problem for many US school districts.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 933

    Pre-Covid, biggest impact of anti-vaxers was on their young children who are NOT as a rule vaccinated. A big problem for many US school districts.

    Indeed. Vanquished infectious diseases, such as whooping cough, were making a resurgence in the US because herd immunity had been lost as the proportion of anti-vaxxers passed the critical level.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,629
    Our county libraries are returning to curbside only service. I hope this is not the beginning of another lockdown,
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,970
    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 933
    Sandpit said:

    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?

    So far, some of them do when it is required for their kids to be eligible for admission into state schools.
  • Most of your so called anti-vaxers are probably just people who have already had covid and don't think they need to risk a new and rushed vaccine as they are probably already immune.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445
    Sandpit said:

    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?

    A lot of Americans do not travel much
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,546

    Sandpit said:

    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?

    A lot of Americans do not travel much
    As Jimmy Carr says...

    "And people say that like it's a bad thing."
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    Anti-vaxxers also like pineapple on their pizzas. FACT.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    A very good thread on a shockingly bad seroprevalence study by the CDC.
    Sets out very well the problems in estimating the numbers of those who have already been infected:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,100
    FPT:

    Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.

    Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.

    I’m leaving well alone.

    Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.

    So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
    That is true, and altogether missing the point. We need to factor in Biden’s age here. He is 77 years old, and on Inauguration Day will be 78. The oldest president elected up to now is Reagan, who was 73 in 1984. So that record will be broken this year. However, the key point then is, ‘how many presidents have made it beyond 80?’

    The answer is 11:
    John Quincy Adams
    Nixon
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    Harry S Truman
    Hoover
    John Adams
    Reagan
    Ford
    George H. Bush
    Carter.

    Now you might point out with some justice that six of those have served since the war, while only three presidents since then (discounting living ones) have failed to make 80, one of whom was assassinated. At the same time, I don’t think on a purely statistical basis you can say Biden is more likely to serve two terms than die in office.

    Moreover, let’s remember he doesn’t have to actually die for the Veep to take over. Given he is elderly and quite frail, he may be temporarily or permanently incapacitated and the Veep have to stand in. A Woodrow Wilson situation (albeit Thomas Marshall never actually knew the President was hors de combat) seems possible.

    So it is going to be important that Biden’s choice at the very least seems a reliable person. They don’t want any Spiro Agnew ‘one heartbeat from the presidency’ style ads.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,942
    Also on topic, I was sent this yesterday.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    I thought that we got herd immunity around 85%? It sounds as if that will not be a problem and that we will do even better than that in the most vulnerable group anyway.

    From what I heard yesterday the question remains whether the proposed vaccine will actually prevent infection or merely reduce the seriousness of the symptoms so it becomes non life threatening for the vast majority. In the latter case it seems likely that some very vulnerable people will still die with Covid in the same way they currently die with flu. This seems to me to be a likely scenario but not one that is going to stop us getting back to our lives. What we will need to do is ensure that governments don't impose another vast wave of bureaucratic controls on us making the operation of the economy difficult.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,464

    Most of your so called anti-vaxers are probably just people who have already had covid and don't think they need to risk a new and rushed vaccine as they are probably already immune.

    Still a highly selfish and illogical attitude
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,168

    Anti-vaxxers also like pineapple on their pizzas. FACT.

    Pineapple having significant antibacterial qualities?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,464
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.

    Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.

    I’m leaving well alone.

    Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.

    So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
    That is true, and altogether missing the point. We need to factor in Biden’s age here. He is 77 years old, and on Inauguration Day will be 78. The oldest president elected up to now is Reagan, who was 73 in 1984. So that record will be broken this year. However, the key point then is, ‘how many presidents have made it beyond 80?’

    The answer is 11:
    John Quincy Adams
    Nixon
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    Harry S Truman
    Hoover
    John Adams
    Reagan
    Ford
    George H. Bush
    Carter.

    Now you might point out with some justice that six of those have served since the war, while only three presidents since then (discounting living ones) have failed to make 80, one of whom was assassinated. At the same time, I don’t think on a purely statistical basis you can say Biden is more likely to serve two terms than die in office.

    Moreover, let’s remember he doesn’t have to actually die for the Veep to take over. Given he is elderly and quite frail, he may be temporarily or permanently incapacitated and the Veep have to stand in. A Woodrow Wilson situation (albeit Thomas Marshall never actually knew the President was hors de combat) seems possible.

    So it is going to be important that Biden’s choice at the very least seems a reliable person. They don’t want any Spiro Agnew ‘one heartbeat from the presidency’ style ads.
    Wasn’t it Dan Quayle who was the target of the heartbeat ads? Didn’t make much difference seemingly.

    I do think it’s likely that Biden will only serve one term.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,168
    DavidL said:

    I thought that we got herd immunity around 85%? It sounds as if that will not be a problem and that we will do even better than that in the most vulnerable group anyway.

    From what I heard yesterday the question remains whether the proposed vaccine will actually prevent infection or merely reduce the seriousness of the symptoms so it becomes non life threatening for the vast majority. In the latter case it seems likely that some very vulnerable people will still die with Covid in the same way they currently die with flu. This seems to me to be a likely scenario but not one that is going to stop us getting back to our lives. What we will need to do is ensure that governments don't impose another vast wave of bureaucratic controls on us making the operation of the economy difficult.

    It’s not black and white but a sliding scale. Minor outbreaks are possible with anything less than 100%, but if there aren’t many potential new victims then they wouldn’t get too far before being squashed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,970

    Sandpit said:

    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?

    A lot of Americans do not travel much
    Americans don't travel abroad much, that is true. They travel a lot on domestic flights though.

    Given that planes are going to be quite miserable places until this disease does away, it wouldn't be a surprise to see domestic airlines insist on vaccines, in the same way as schools do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,100

    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.

    Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.

    I’m leaving well alone.

    Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.

    So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
    That is true, and altogether missing the point. We need to factor in Biden’s age here. He is 77 years old, and on Inauguration Day will be 78. The oldest president elected up to now is Reagan, who was 73 in 1984. So that record will be broken this year. However, the key point then is, ‘how many presidents have made it beyond 80?’

    The answer is 11:
    John Quincy Adams
    Nixon
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    Harry S Truman
    Hoover
    John Adams
    Reagan
    Ford
    George H. Bush
    Carter.

    Now you might point out with some justice that six of those have served since the war, while only three presidents since then (discounting living ones) have failed to make 80, one of whom was assassinated. At the same time, I don’t think on a purely statistical basis you can say Biden is more likely to serve two terms than die in office.

    Moreover, let’s remember he doesn’t have to actually die for the Veep to take over. Given he is elderly and quite frail, he may be temporarily or permanently incapacitated and the Veep have to stand in. A Woodrow Wilson situation (albeit Thomas Marshall never actually knew the President was hors de combat) seems possible.

    So it is going to be important that Biden’s choice at the very least seems a reliable person. They don’t want any Spiro Agnew ‘one heartbeat from the presidency’ style ads.
    Wasn’t it Dan Quayle who was the target of the heartbeat ads? Didn’t make much difference seemingly.

    I do think it’s likely that Biden will only serve one term.
    You’re right, I was thinking of the ‘Agnew for Vice President’ ad, with the laughter track.

    It didn’t make much difference in 1988. I won’t go bail for the issue making no difference in 1992 when Bush had been diagnosed with Graves’ disease and thrown up all over the Japanese Prime Minister.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,123
    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that we got herd immunity around 85%? It sounds as if that will not be a problem and that we will do even better than that in the most vulnerable group anyway.

    From what I heard yesterday the question remains whether the proposed vaccine will actually prevent infection or merely reduce the seriousness of the symptoms so it becomes non life threatening for the vast majority. In the latter case it seems likely that some very vulnerable people will still die with Covid in the same way they currently die with flu. This seems to me to be a likely scenario but not one that is going to stop us getting back to our lives. What we will need to do is ensure that governments don't impose another vast wave of bureaucratic controls on us making the operation of the economy difficult.

    It’s not black and white but a sliding scale. Minor outbreaks are possible with anything less than 100%, but if there aren’t many potential new victims then they wouldn’t get too far before being squashed.
    Indeed, and that is what we want to achieve. I don't see this virus going away anytime soon and our lax attitude to air travel means we will have occasional outbreaks anyway. We simply want them to stop quickly with minimal harm.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...
  • ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 367
    Infinite Monkey Cage covered Conspiracy Theories, including anti-vax before C-19.

    Very interesting listen on the whole topic about who does and does not believe in conspiracy theories and especially anti-vax.....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000dfqn

    Series 21

    20th Jan 2020 in case link does not work properly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,970
    Another interesting invention - rapid laser-based screening, based on a drop of blood. Coming out of an Abu Dhabi university, and being field tested at the land border with Dubai. Negative test allows one to cross immediately, positive test sends you for a more traditional nose swab test and a day or two in quarantine until the result is known.

    This could be of use to ports and airports for rapid screening, there's ongoing research into the accuracy based on the field trials.

    https://english.alarabiya.net/en/coronavirus/2020/07/14/Coronavirus-Abu-Dhabi-implements-laser-screening-for-entry-amid-COVID-19-lockdown
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    I think that depends on whether he is a con man or simply deluded. I have never been sure. If the latter then being struck off as a doctor is arguably sufficient.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,198
    edited July 22

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    My late mother, a pharmacist who had worked in East London in the late 20's/early 30's, when diphtheria was common, ensured that my sister and I had every vaccination available. And said the same about her grandchildren, although neither my sister nor I needed much convincing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,970
    edited July 22

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,123
    DavidL said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    I think that depends on whether he is a con man or simply deluded. I have never been sure. If the latter then being struck off as a doctor is arguably sufficient.
    He's a snake oil merchant who has directly and indirectly caused death. Perhaps a custodial sentence was hyperbole on my part but you get the drift.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657

    DavidL said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    I think that depends on whether he is a con man or simply deluded. I have never been sure. If the latter then being struck off as a doctor is arguably sufficient.
    He's a snake oil merchant who has directly and indirectly caused death. Perhaps a custodial sentence was hyperbole on my part but you get the drift.
    Oh I am not disagreeing. The man is responsible for death and disability. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Bollocks to all that. Arsenal didn't have a shot on target over the whole game.

    Ponder the fuck over that stat.

    Jeez.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Will the anti-vaxxers still hold their opinions, when airlines, immigration authorities and insurance companies insist that one is required in order to travel anywhere?

    A lot of Americans do not travel much
    Americans don't travel abroad much, that is true. They travel a lot on domestic flights though.

    Given that planes are going to be quite miserable places until this disease does away, it wouldn't be a surprise to see domestic airlines insist on vaccines, in the same way as schools do.
    I suspect that car use (note: not necessarily ownership) will increase. And walking, cycling, inlines, scooters etc. Public/collective transport (which includes air and rail travel) is bound to take a hit. A possible exception is ferry services. Especially North Sea services.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Bollocks to all that. Arsenal didn't have a shot on target over the whole game.

    Ponder the fuck over that stat.

    Jeez.
    Still thinking about the cup final, I presume. But Arsenal have had a truly mediocre season in the league. If I was a Watford fan I would have seen it coming.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.

    Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.

    I’m leaving well alone.

    Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.

    So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
    That is true, and altogether missing the point. We need to factor in Biden’s age here. He is 77 years old, and on Inauguration Day will be 78. The oldest president elected up to now is Reagan, who was 73 in 1984. So that record will be broken this year. However, the key point then is, ‘how many presidents have made it beyond 80?’

    The answer is 11:
    John Quincy Adams
    Nixon
    Thomas Jefferson
    James Madison
    Harry S Truman
    Hoover
    John Adams
    Reagan
    Ford
    George H. Bush
    Carter.

    Now you might point out with some justice that six of those have served since the war, while only three presidents since then (discounting living ones) have failed to make 80, one of whom was assassinated. At the same time, I don’t think on a purely statistical basis you can say Biden is more likely to serve two terms than die in office.

    Moreover, let’s remember he doesn’t have to actually die for the Veep to take over. Given he is elderly and quite frail, he may be temporarily or permanently incapacitated and the Veep have to stand in. A Woodrow Wilson situation (albeit Thomas Marshall never actually knew the President was hors de combat) seems possible.

    So it is going to be important that Biden’s choice at the very least seems a reliable person. They don’t want any Spiro Agnew ‘one heartbeat from the presidency’ style ads.
    Wasn’t it Dan Quayle who was the target of the heartbeat ads? Didn’t make much difference seemingly.

    I do think it’s likely that Biden will only serve one term.
    You’re right, I was thinking of the ‘Agnew for Vice President’ ad, with the laughter track.

    It didn’t make much difference in 1988. I won’t go bail for the issue making no difference in 1992 when Bush had been diagnosed with Graves’ disease and thrown up all over the Japanese Prime Minister.
    If anything helped the Dukakis campaign in '88, it was the Bentsen pick. Didn't make them come even close to winning in Texas but he lent gravitas to an effort that needed it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    Oh and on topic I'm surprised that so many young people would agree to have a vaccine which is a near enough wholly altruistic action.

    Perhaps if it came to it they would (cf voting) forget to do it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,970
    Chinese spyware social media app TikTok trying the same guilt trip on the US as they tried on the UK - announce 10,000 new jobs just as the politicians are discussing a ban on their application.

    Presumably so they can later use friendly media to accuse said politicians of 'costing 10,000 jobs'.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/tech/tiktok-jobs/index.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    I didn't see it but I heard it on R5 driving home from Edinburgh last night. 4-0 deeply flattered Watford. They were lucky.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Bollocks to all that. Arsenal didn't have a shot on target over the whole game.

    Ponder the fuck over that stat.

    Jeez.
    Still thinking about the cup final, I presume. But Arsenal have had a truly mediocre season in the league. If I was a Watford fan I would have seen it coming.
    I would hope that thinking about the cup final would not interfere with them beating a club seeking to avoid relegation ffs.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445
    I had my kids vaccinated.

    But ...

    At the time (mid 90s) the Wakefield MMR controversy was all the rage. There was also reports that Gulf War Syndrome was a reaction caused by injecting soldiers with a large number of medicines/vaccines that overwhelmed and damaged their immune systems.

    Then you take your child into the GP who tells you that they will be dosing your infant child with 6 vaccines.

    I am not surprised that there were anti-vaxxers. When I was confronted with this I said we would take the MMR and come back in a month for the other three. You would have thought I was a murderer. The row got so heated I changed GP.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 6,100
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Bollocks to all that. Arsenal didn't have a shot on target over the whole game.

    Ponder the fuck over that stat.

    Jeez.
    Still thinking about the cup final, I presume. But Arsenal have had a truly mediocre season in the league. If I was a Watford fan I would have seen it coming.
    I would hope that thinking about the cup final would not interfere with them beating a club seeking to avoid relegation ffs.
    What a strange hope. Players are human and their motivations vary shocker.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,859
    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Wasn't he the holder of the patents on the single disease vaccines, which he failed to disclose.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 24,155

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Bollocks to all that. Arsenal didn't have a shot on target over the whole game.

    Ponder the fuck over that stat.

    Jeez.
    Still thinking about the cup final, I presume. But Arsenal have had a truly mediocre season in the league. If I was a Watford fan I would have seen it coming.
    I would hope that thinking about the cup final would not interfere with them beating a club seeking to avoid relegation ffs.
    What a strange hope. Players are human and their motivations vary shocker.
    Thank God they weren't in the Champions League or they would have been relegated themselves.

    Like the other Champions League teams this season. Oh wait.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,202
    FPT - there was some very superficial analysis on the Russia's foreign policy motivations that neglects two very important factors:

    1. The nature of Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics as the philosophical bedrock of Putinism. This book is taught throughout the Russian military and security apparati. It describes in great detail the nature of Russia's grand strategic project. The separation of the UK from Europe and its reduction to the status of US client state is an imperative. Russia's relationship with Iran and its activities in Libya are also contextualised and predicted in Dugin's book.

    2. One important and, in the West, under-appreciated reason that Russia likes to sow highly visible discord abroad is to discourage emigration which is a further drain on Russia's demographic problem. The intensity and regularity with which this message (the West is fucked, don't even thing about going there) is only readily apparent in the Russophone media.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 6,100
    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - there was some very superficial analysis on the Russia's foreign policy motivations that neglects two very important factors:

    1. The nature of Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics as the philosophical bedrock of Putinism. This book is taught throughout the Russian military and security apparati. It describes in great detail the nature of Russia's grand strategic project. The separation of the UK from Europe and its reduction to the status of US client state is an imperative. Russia's relationship with Iran and its activities in Libya are also contextualised and predicted in Dugin's book.

    2. One important and, in the West, under-appreciated reason that Russia likes to sow highly visible discord abroad is to discourage emigration which is a further drain on Russia's demographic problem. The intensity and regularity with which this message (the West is fucked, don't even thing about going there) is only readily apparent in the Russophone media.

    Russia is also one of the few big winners from global warming, earning money from fossil fuels now, few coastal cities at risk from rising sea levels and an improved climate across most of their country.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,100
    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Arguably we are too shy about locking up prominent scientists even when we should.

    The case of Roy Meadow, whose entirely false testimony based on statistics he didn’t understand and wasn’t competent to explain convicted several women of infanticide, springs to mind.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,808
    The Lancet didn't come out of the Wakefield scandal well. I remember readng the article and being annoyed how thin it was - proper Micky Mouse science.

    But, as always, people believe what they want to believe. And it's only the headlines they read. Once published by the Lancet, it gained credibility it didn't deserve.

    I blame the referees. You can always add a need for more work as an add-on at the end, but no one will take notice of that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Arguably we are too shy about locking up prominent scientists even when we should.

    The case of Roy Meadow, whose entirely false testimony based on statistics he didn’t understand and wasn’t competent to explain convicted several women of infanticide, springs to mind.
    Can you seriously imagine politicians wanting to set a precedent of locking people up for mere incompetence? Not sure about it myself!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,306
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Arguably we are too shy about locking up prominent scientists even when we should.

    The case of Roy Meadow, whose entirely false testimony based on statistics he didn’t understand and wasn’t competent to explain convicted several women of infanticide, springs to mind.
    I see a top scientist is predicting humans will give up the handshake.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,202

    Dura_Ace said:

    FPT - there was some very superficial analysis on the Russia's foreign policy motivations that neglects two very important factors:

    1. The nature of Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics as the philosophical bedrock of Putinism. This book is taught throughout the Russian military and security apparati. It describes in great detail the nature of Russia's grand strategic project. The separation of the UK from Europe and its reduction to the status of US client state is an imperative. Russia's relationship with Iran and its activities in Libya are also contextualised and predicted in Dugin's book.

    2. One important and, in the West, under-appreciated reason that Russia likes to sow highly visible discord abroad is to discourage emigration which is a further drain on Russia's demographic problem. The intensity and regularity with which this message (the West is fucked, don't even thing about going there) is only readily apparent in the Russophone media.

    Russia is also one of the few big winners from global warming, earning money from fossil fuels now, few coastal cities at risk from rising sea levels and an improved climate across most of their country.
    Dugin has quite a bit to say about this too in terms of the coming and inevitable conflict of the tellurocracies vs thalassocracies. A Russian-Islamic Eurasian power axis vs the West.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 30,100
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Arguably we are too shy about locking up prominent scientists even when we should.

    The case of Roy Meadow, whose entirely false testimony based on statistics he didn’t understand and wasn’t competent to explain convicted several women of infanticide, springs to mind.
    Can you seriously imagine politicians wanting to set a precedent of locking people up for mere incompetence? Not sure about it myself!
    It remains doubtful that Meadows’ testimony was mere incompetence.

    Besides, it was judges, not politicians, who made the ruling. One judge even went so far as to say that expert witnesses could not be held responsible for their testimony being totally worthless and inaccurate, which was an extraordinary view to take.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,187
    I was polled on the vexed question of a vaccination. I would have one, but I think I would wait for the early ones to be done and see what effect it had before offering myself up to the needle. I haven't had flu jabs either, but at my advancing age I guess I must bow to the inevitable...
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,306
    Looks like Trump is performing massive u-turn on virus now he has secured his base by near 100%.

    Expect the polls between him and Biden to close.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    Some people are just terrified of needles
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    edited July 22
    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    I read they’d already agreed to pay his bonus
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    Scott_xP said:
    We're already reliably complaisant, so why would they be in any rush ?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,824
    edited July 22
    Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail was prominent in discouraging the use of the MMR vaccine, or is that just my anti-DM prejudice showing through?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,749
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
    Turns out it is not just doctors (and lawyers in Meadow's case) who do not understand probability and statistics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    With only 10% opposed good to see the vast majority say they will have the vaccine
  • Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    TOPPING said:

    Oh and on topic I'm surprised that so many young people would agree to have a vaccine which is a near enough wholly altruistic action.

    Perhaps if it came to it they would (cf voting) forget to do it.

    You may be on to something there. A lot of people under 50 are extremely pissed off with people over 50, because of eg. Brexit. “Forgetting” to take a vaccine might be their little private protest against older people “forgetting” about the interests of younger people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    edited July 22

    I was polled on the vexed question of a vaccination. I would have one, but I think I would wait for the early ones to be done and see what effect it had before offering myself up to the needle. I haven't had flu jabs either, but at my advancing age I guess I must bow to the inevitable...

    On a balance of risk, should the virus be prevalent again in the winter, early vaccination would make sense.

    FWIW, I've volunteered for one of the large scale trials now that they're looking for over 50s.
    Yet to hear anything.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,482
    "Ireland donates the world’s most successful contact tracing app to the Linux Foundation"
    https://www.nearform.com/blog/ireland-donates-contact-tracing-app-to-linux-foundation/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,050
    edited July 22

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling this year 43 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,482

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    No, I really believe that they want No Deal. My M.P. has always said that she's 'not afraid of No Deal' but it's obvious that she wants it.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    The main thing is that we’ve got the adverts all over the TV encouraging people and businesses to “prepare” for the post transition era without anyone having the foggiest idea about what we should be “preparing” for (unless you go for the safety first (but probably rational) worst case scenario.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106
    HYUFD said:

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling 46 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
    I think you might have (deliberately?) missed the thrust of Stuart's argument.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,306
    Scott_xP said:

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
    Please get the nomenclature right Scott, we heading for a Australian Rules deal in December.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,482

    I was polled on the vexed question of a vaccination. I would have one, but I think I would wait for the early ones to be done and see what effect it had before offering myself up to the needle. I haven't had flu jabs either, but at my advancing age I guess I must bow to the inevitable...

    Why not have the flu jab - free, probably effective most years and not painful.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 5,106
    Scott_xP said:

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
    Covid is a handy cloak to wrap around the aftermath.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542

    Please get the nomenclature right Scott, we heading for a Australian Rules deal in December.

    One that doesn't include Australia...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,657
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    I really enjoy the variety Mike brings to thread topics. This is another great one.

    Andrew Wakefield had a disproportionately high following among unfulfilled middle-class suburban mothers. They lapped him up. Literally.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/andrew-wakefield-the-vaccine-scaremonger-whos-snared-supermodel-elle-macpherson-5tgzdth08

    I have a close friend who was totally beguiled and besotted by him. She attended his talks along with thousands of other dewey-eyed and guilt-ridden mothers. She bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense, refusing to vaccinate her children.

    He should be behind bars.

    The UK doesn't imprison either charlatans or misguided scientists, freedom of speech is far too important for that.

    If he'd been defrauding people of money, or inciting violence, that's different. That he is professionally ruined is more than sufficient punishment for his actions.
    Arguably we are too shy about locking up prominent scientists even when we should.

    The case of Roy Meadow, whose entirely false testimony based on statistics he didn’t understand and wasn’t competent to explain convicted several women of infanticide, springs to mind.
    Can you seriously imagine politicians wanting to set a precedent of locking people up for mere incompetence? Not sure about it myself!
    It remains doubtful that Meadows’ testimony was mere incompetence.

    Besides, it was judges, not politicians, who made the ruling. One judge even went so far as to say that expert witnesses could not be held responsible for their testimony being totally worthless and inaccurate, which was an extraordinary view to take.
    What you have to appreciate is that many judges and most lawyers are completely innumerate. Its why they did law instead of something useful like a STEM subject. Statistics or maths can seem like magic to such people and they are reluctant to question it in case they show their own ignorance.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,198
    HYUFD said:

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling this year 43 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
    Given that the Russians (probably) interfered on the side of independence, if the polling companies aren'y being interfered with surely that means that the Nat's independence is more likely this time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,198

    Scott_xP said:

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
    Please get the nomenclature right Scott, we heading for a Australian Rules deal in December.
    A game which no-one else plays.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
    Not quite they analysis was that Pearson had to go. Mine would have been that Pearson was still probably the only person who could have motivated the team and kept them up - it was just too late to change things.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,831

    Scott_xP said:

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
    Please get the nomenclature right Scott, we heading for a Australian Rules deal in December.
    A game which no-one else plays.
    You go and tell their players that their game is shit then!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 4,542
    edited July 22
    Hugo Rifkind
    Today, the government's position seems to be explicitly that Russian agents took the Brexit referendum off, despite definitely being active in British votes both before and after. Were they just not into it? Day in lieu?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,901
    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    Losing Big Nige was a major mistake.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,573
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
    Not quite they analysis was that Pearson had to go. Mine would have been that Pearson was still probably the only person who could have motivated the team and kept them up - it was just too late to change things.
    Possibly depends how much you believe the stories about what happened in the Watford dressing room after the game.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,445

    HYUFD said:

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling 46 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
    I think you might have (deliberately?) missed the thrust of Stuart's argument.
    I hope that the Scots get their independence
  • kjhkjh Posts: 1,804
    alex_ said:

    The main thing is that we’ve got the adverts all over the TV encouraging people and businesses to “prepare” for the post transition era without anyone having the foggiest idea about what we should be “preparing” for (unless you go for the safety first (but probably rational) worst case scenario.

    I commented on these the other day. A complete waste of public money, that no commercial organisation would waste.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 5,809

    Am I right in thinking the Daily Mail was prominent in discouraging the use of the MMR vaccine, or is that just my anti-DM prejudice showing through?

    They were prominent advocates of not vaccinating I think, if you need a certificate to prove you’ve had it to do various things (fly, concerts etc) what happens to those who can’t have it, I think being on chemo excludes you although I may be wrong. I’d be buggered and probably would struggle to get travel insurance which will become more necessary across Europe when EHIC goes.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 223
    TOPPING said:

    Oh and on topic I'm surprised that so many young people would agree to have a vaccine which is a near enough wholly altruistic action.

    Perhaps if it came to it they would (cf voting) forget to do it.

    I'm surprised by your comment. The young people I know tend to be more altruistic than their elders and are keen to be vaccinated.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    HYUFD said:

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling this year 43 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
    I love the smell of complacent Unionist in the morning.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,824
    HYUFD said:
    That's a good score for Trump in PA and follows on a couple of other decent polls. Poor figures in Ohio though. He can't afford to lose that.

    Seems Joe is still on track, but still beatable.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    HYUFD said:

    This FT opinion piece has received more than 1000 comments. Must be something of a record in recent times. This is a topic that clearly engages an important demographic, and they are not happy bunnies. Johnson is pretty much universally considered to be making a total cluster**** of this issue.

    ‘Scotland may be the price of Boris Johnson’s place in history’
    - UK prime minister will have to fight to save the Union from himself

    ...Mr Johnson helped cause the problem. The 2014 independence referendum should have killed the issue for a generation. But Brexit, which Scotland voted against, revived it. Scots then saw Mr Johnson topple Theresa May, because her approach prioritised saving the Union...

    ...He is now discussing a Scottish tour but this might go down as well as a royal progress by the conquering knights of Edward I. Mr Johnson is, in the words of one Unionist, “irredeemably toxic to Scots”.

    ...One leading unionist observes: “I am very pessimistic. The only real grounds for optimism is that people in London are now very worried and that the cabinet office is getting engaged.” Another adds: “London has now seen what they are dealing with. The SNP are not the Liberal Democrats.”

    ...UK dealings with the devolved administrations are characterised by an almost colonial mindset and need a rethink. One former Downing Street staffer said: “This is not just about politicians. Whitehall also too often treats the first ministers of Scotland and Wales like regional mayors rather than the leaders of countries.” 

    ...This will only get worse as the US trade talks reach a head. With vocal Scottish opposition to weakening food standards, Mr Johnson may be forced to choose between shoring up the Union and the prize of a US trade deal.

    That Unionists are waking up to the danger does not mean they are any closer to finding solutions. Most agree that they must find “an emotional argument” for the union. One also argues for small signals like changing the name of the Bank of England to the UK Central Bank.

    ...Generationally and politically the tide appears to be flowing towards independence. Mr Johnson’s temptation will be to smother Scotland with cash, and hope to prevent an SNP majority next year...

    ...Mr Johnson is drawn to such brinkmanship and sets great store in his political charm, but he knows his Brexit vision has powered the nationalist surge. If Scotland goes, it will be a calamity he has largely visited upon himself. And history will not be kind.

    https://www.ft.com/content/6929f1ca-69e7-419e-90b5-ca08a423004c

    45% of Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014, on the latest polling this year 43 to 50% of Scots would vote Yes including Don't Knows.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling

    So really Brexit has not made that much difference and we know Boris respects the fact 2014 was a 'once in a generation referendum' anyway
    I love the smell of complacent Unionist in the morning.
    HYUFD isn't a Unionist he's a jackboot wearing extremist.

    A true unionist wouldn't want to say that Scottish votes don't matter.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 20,282
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
    Not quite they analysis was that Pearson had to go. Mine would have been that Pearson was still probably the only person who could have motivated the team and kept them up - it was just too late to change things.
    I can understand not wanting Pearson there long term, but changing managers with two games to go is a crazy decision. Not losing as badly to city and a point against Arsenal would probably have been enough to stay up. I think Pearson world probably have got them there, now I'd say they're favourites for the third relegation spot unless Arsenal completely self destruct (not outside the realms of possibility).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,345

    HYUFD said:
    That's a good score for Trump in PA and follows on a couple of other decent polls. Poor figures in Ohio though. He can't afford to lose that.

    Seems Joe is still on track, but still beatable.
    A good reminder that individual state polls will very much not be accurate, I refuse to believe Trump will outperform in PA compared to OH. The broad picture is good for Biden as you say though.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 34,306

    HYUFD said:
    That's a good score for Trump in PA and follows on a couple of other decent polls. Poor figures in Ohio though. He can't afford to lose that.

    Seems Joe is still on track, but still beatable.
    I'm expecting the polls to close between the two now that Trump is u-turning on virus (if he sticks to what he's being obviously told by advisors).

    Possibly by election day it will have been forgotten that he told everyone it was a hoax and would disappear anyway of its own accord, is cured by bleach and no one need stay off work.
  • eekeek Posts: 8,645
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Did we cover Watford's disastrous night last night?

    Needing points from the last two games you sack your manager and then in the first of the games lose by enough goals that you end up in the relegation zone with a game to go...

    They were always going to be thrashed by Man City. It is the West Ham result that is a devastating blow to them.
    Hang on, even Arsenal beat Man City, so they can't be that good.
    Pearson had a £1m bonus resting on staying up. He pulled them out of the relegation zone - only for them to fall back into it when Watford sacked him.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Watford were relegated and Pearson went to court and won the case.
    To save £1m they're risking premier league status which is worth £150m. Incredible risk analysis from the owners.
    Not quite they analysis was that Pearson had to go. Mine would have been that Pearson was still probably the only person who could have motivated the team and kept them up - it was just too late to change things.
    I can understand not wanting Pearson there long term, but changing managers with two games to go is a crazy decision. Not losing as badly to city and a point against Arsenal would probably have been enough to stay up. I think Pearson world probably have got them there, now I'd say they're favourites for the third relegation spot unless Arsenal completely self destruct (not outside the realms of possibility).
    When I saw the announcement it was the largest WTF moment I'd had for a while. Completely and utterly insane regardless of the previous result given the timing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    Scott_xP said:

    Telegraph says Government has given up hope of deal. All a ruse like with No Deal last time or are we really headed for oblivion?

    Last time wasn't a ruse. We are heading for No Deal with anybody
    Please get the nomenclature right Scott, we heading for a Australian Rules deal in December.
    Aussie Rules is not for wimps.
This discussion has been closed.