cica

Have you studied the literature on this topic? Pre Covid I mean.

Risk compensation is definitely real. It may explain why there is no evidence masks are effective apart from a partial model. There’s nothing uninformed about this - the opposite in fact. I read a lot of literature and studies - even before this started - and even on masks.

You're welcome to be specific about which part is uninformed supposition. Again, you're referring to a partial model. I'm not waiting for anything - I simply look at what is there and is relevant and logical.

This is a partial model. Is there strong evidence that masks reduce spreading of diseases? End-to-end model - comparing mask usage to sickness. I didn't think there was and I've been reading about this stuff since way before Covid-19. There are studies comparing common cold in Asian countries where they already have a culture of wearing a mask when sick to rest of the world. There have been studies of surgeons and masks. Things like risk compensation which is surely a real phenomenon completely mess with models not to mention the fact that when people are in close proximately there are other vectors of transmission that may dwarf aerosol transmission. I think you need to be a bit more honest with yourself and everyone that these are partial models and there just isn't much relevant evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

I’ve worked for a US company from UK. Went over there to hangout quite a bit. Huge difference to the average european “equivalent”. Very skilled. Very enthusiastic. No language barriers - directly work related or just building relationships. In terms of iPads and iPhones, they can eat into PC market share just on the shocking number of ransomware f ups going on at the moment. Way way way harder to attack. It’s little holes in windows they are exploring and destroying networks once in on one computer. But I suspect the stock is overvalued.

Eh? Where did I do that? I was actually extremely clear that I didn’t know.

I haven’t done enough studying on masks to have a strong opinion either way. Just some surface research. I do want to take issue with comparing them to seat belts. They are not analogous. It’s a dreadful analogy. Seat belts were not introduced for firefighters to find the bodies easier or to protect front seat passengers from unbelted rear occupants (they weren’t even mandated in the rear for a long time). Not sure where those ideas came from They were introduced to lower death rates of car occupants in car crashes. It was done around the time of introducing the breathalyser which drastically changed behaviour in places like the UK. Alcohol and driving are not compatible if you didn’t already know. So the data is actually not as clear as many would have you believe but irrelevant I suppose. The main point I want to make though is that if I was being purely selfish I’d rationally want to wear a seatbelt but everyone else not wear one. There’s very strong evidence that risk compensation is real (increased safety leads to increased risks). Seatbelts and masks are not analogous.

Surely the meaningful detail and outcome of this negotiation will only become clear after any deal or otherwise is done or not done.

What’s the lay of the land right now? I’m coming in September to rent for a few months to see if I want to buy. Everything arbitrary to me not being from the area. Rents quite high but only same as where I am coming from.

I reckon prices will come down as it’s going to dawn on first time buyers that the future is not promised. Anything could be around the corner to trash your economic value. Feels crazy now how predictable the last 20 years have been.

In the banking crisis we bailed the system and the players. We actually need to bail the players now I think.

What exactly is your point? That our democracy isn't really democratic? Or that we have a democracy and Brexit wasn't democratic in the type of democracy we have? Most people are cynical but if we're arguing about Brexit within what we name democracy I don't see a problem with the conversation.

Read the full context - don't be disingenuous. Every single thing we do in democracy is flawed in some sense. Your answers just ooze the fact that you didn't like the outcome. I didn't either. To call it undemocratic is just desperately ridiculous. Electorate participation and parliamentary scrutiny is all we have...I don't think you're thinking about the consequences of holding your principles at all.

Of course it's flawed. Every single thing we do in our democratic processes is flawed. It's hardly some travesty of democracy if it's the same vote we used to join and had cross party parliamentary support, allowed places like Gibraltar to take part (which they may not have depending on the question) and reduced the effectiveness of things like divide and rule/conquer.

But that's not a specific argument against the referendum - that's an argument why the referendum isn't perfect. Coming up with reasons why some democratic process doesn't make much sense can be applied to every single thing. The referendum clearly makes some sense - it's the same question we were asked to join the EC and had a lot of cross-party parliamentary support and did allow places like Gibraltar to take place who should not be allowed to vote to keep the UK in the Customs Union for example in my opinion. Gina Miller forced parliament to put their stamp on enacting article 50 - that was surely a massive mistake by her.