Bob8

One of the most succienct brexit I read was on a rugby league message board, on the inevitable post-Breixt problems; "The Leavers will blame the EU because that is what they do, and the Remainers will blame the Leavers because it is their fault". It stood the test of time.

I think you have to understand it the other way. If the EU is not there for any good reason, nor to resolve any problem, then removing the EU should leave to no problem. If it does, the EU must e deliberately creating it. Yes, I mean we could move the EU to Asia but I am not sure than is practical. I think you have to understand it the other way. If the EU is not there for any good reason, nor to resolve any problem, then removing the EU should leave to no problem. If it does, the EU must e deliberately creating it.

Yes. Obviously. Very, very obvious.

Yes. You see it as a political issue. The mass of people who deal with this are likely to be aware of what you come up with. If you think otherwise, then you are putting yourself on a higher intellectual level.

You are making things up, that is hardly an accusation. I am not claiming to e an expert, I have experience of specific aspect. I see many on here claiming expertise and assuming a higher intellectual level. Like you. I am sure that you are a decent man, but you accusing others of arrogance is, perhaps, a little bit silly?

There is not a high standard of argument to lower there. If you want that, go over to PubMed and publish. On this forum you are allowed to lie and consider it a contribution. I cannot imagine you will do any more in this field.

Yes, it would be. Were that true. Which it is not.

People are accepting of what they are used to and fear the new. But, think they are completely impartial.

The ojection is to things they are not used to. That is it. They assume they are logical and do not question it.

There are papers on this. I am not just guessing. If you are genuinely expert in this field, then I would be grateful for your input. I suspect you are just asserting what is normal.

Again, you talk like this is a clever point What happened was there was the issue, i.e. the flu killing many people. The absolute cure was seen as excessive, so we have a moderate treatment to mitigate that accepts practicality (i.e. vaccinating the old) despite it being inefficient. The health services are (or should be) designed to cope with winter surges. Having Covid-19 on top was extra, so extra meansures are implemented. Again, this will be a balance of risk, with measures having pluses and minuses. The reality is the nations that have coped best are the ones implementing moderate measures early enough that they seem excessive. The measures in Denmark have, been slightly lighter than the UK, but earlier and with frequent testing f healthy people being encouraged. It turned out far better than the UK. Waiting until it is too late then having to implement severe adn ineffective measures (the UK approach) has been terrible.

I am really not. It is so obvious that it does not need saying in intelligent company. There are papers (I co-authored one) on risk assessment just because of this.

This is the same pattern with this debate and at this point it is either dishonest or stupid. Everything has a downside, nothing is 100%. I am finding the people who write that "people don't understand risk" should include themselves. It is fairly harmless in the young, who are not at extra risk (that is a significant caveat), but a night club is a great place to spread it. The majority of them will get a sniffle and immunity, but perhaps spreaad it. If they are vaccinated, the chance to spread it is reduced dramatically. Old people die of the flu, but young people spread it. If we could get young people vaccinated against flu, it would the best way to protect old people. Of course, nothing is 100%. There is risk and ew try and reduce the risk. People accept this in areas of life they are used to and become hysterical when it is new.

For six years, the question of "What do you specifically want?" has dragged on. It is still relevent.

Really? Or is it a horrible messy compromise with reality that you will acclaim as a triumph?