Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cica

  1. Have you studied the literature on this topic? Pre Covid I mean.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Eh? Where did I do that? I was actually extremely clear that I didn’t know.
  7. 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.
  8. Surely the meaningful detail and outcome of this negotiation will only become clear after any deal or otherwise is done or not done.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. In the banking crisis we bailed the system and the players. We actually need to bail the players now I think.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. And even the ones that did know what's in the treaties may support them for vastly different reasons than someone else. ...which brings us back to it only ever and always being a vote in principle on a say about how we are governed.
  17. ...and yet it was strongly supported by many in parliament and parliament as a whole. What's ironic is that I'm certain the in/out nature was agreed to make leaving look very unappealing (i.e. is it a vote to leave the SM etc.) The problems with in/out are enormous but that's not really an argument against doing it because all of democracy is a total mess - you can never ever get close to some sort of "perfect" democracy. No system will ever make close to being good. It's a vote that roughly makes sense given the fact it's how we joined, had lots of parliamentary support and allowed places like Gibraltar to take part - clearly we couldn't have Gibraltar voting on the UK remaining in the Customs Union for example.
  18. Yeah, who knows. It's one of the huge imperfections of democracy and ballot papers that we don't judge why people voted so to filter them by some other rules. Maybe you could propose some electoral reform. I don't think you can back up in any meaningful sense that Brexit was a vote for an undeliverable fantasy. This is all your personal interpretation and you got to vote on your values as most people want you to have the opportunity to have. For you to impose your interpretations on others is surely a step too far.
  19. There is no specific anything - we've had a lot of new treaties and more are inevitable. It's a vote on principle - nothing else. As far as I can see, although its been painful as hell, Parliament has been broadly supporting moving forward so there's hardly any travesty of democracy.
  20. There is no need to argue about possible future changes, that is an unknown risk that accompanies every optio Exactly. You're just supporting my point. What you are basically saying is everything is risky but Brexit is too much risk...for you. That's probably why you voted to remain. The line is one you have. I do not buy the argument that Leave supporters are not democrats - there is no democracy if we have to double check the result and double the check - that grinds democracy to a halt. Which brings me back to the point that is painfully obvious as it completely resolves every single argument I've ever heard - Brexit is clearly a vote on principle about how we are governed. It's the same mechanism which we used to join the EC which has become something vastly different from what was envisioned - (expansion, FoM). Anyone can play divide and rule/conquer games - you'd be the first to scream if it was used again you I'm sure. To be clear I'm personally all for FoM but I don't see how anyone can claim Brexit is somehow a travesty of democracy given the parliamentary scrutiny - Gina Miller's case to make Parliament vote to support invoking A50 just solidified it further - talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
  21. I'm not trying to hide anything - I assure you. You've just done the very thing I said in/out did avoid which was attempts of divide and rule/conquer. It's a trick as old as democracy itself as should be derided by all because one day it'll be used against all of us in some way. Your starting point seems to be be that Brexit is inherently "incorrect" in some way if you start using these kinds of arguments. Remain is not a specific form either. We've had many iterations of treaties and surely (please do argue the opposite if you want) more to come. I don't know why people can't see Brexit is clearly a vote on principle. We all have different values and it's an instinctive vote based on how you think we should be governed. It doesn't do anything more than that. There is no best for all but we either have some sort of democracy or we don't.
  22. One thing in/out killed off is attempts of divide and rule/conquer which you are trying to see creep in. We must start at the point where Remaining or Leaving in principle is perfectly noble. If we have a have a parliament willing to do it (and we mostly do given we're at the second reading of the withdrawal act) then I don't see any massive travesty of democracy.
  23. Sort of - how many people thought that though? Surely they'd always choose Germany - even if Brexit didn't exist. Germany might regret having them if they really really shake up the industry - designing their cars with ride/time share in mind by design etc.
  24. What's ironic, as I understand it, is that the in/out nature was actually strongly supported by the Remainers exactly to discourage Brexit to happen. It was considered the strongest way to spook people to remain - "threats" of leaving the SM etc.
  25. Yeah, exactly so universal coverage and privatisation are completely independent things. It's effectively impossible to have this conversation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.