Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. If you expect 100% safety then you shouldn't be giving them any vaccines at all, because as I've pointed out numerous times there's no such thing as zero risk. Yes, the risk from Covid for someone young with no relevant conditions is very low. But it's non-zero. The risk from the vaccine is very low. But it's non-zero. Whilst I regard it as entirely valid to say "both those are sufficiently low that I simply couldn't care less and I'll just go and get on with life" (heaven knows I'm thoroughly sick of pathetic over-caution and mitigation against risks that aren't high to begin with - that's paranoia in my book) that's not the same as complaining solely about the risk on one front and not considering whether or not it's higher or lower than the one it's supposed to mitigate.
  2. Back to demanding 100% safety again I see... If people are being given a vaccine where the risk of the vaccine is higher than the risk of the disease then it's disgusting beyond words.
  3. The appropriate question isn't how long it'll take to look pretty much like something else in Earth's history, it's how long it'll take to make various habitats difficult or impossible for what inhabits them at the moment.
  4. Thought you weren't engaging in this any more. I've already pointed out why "safe" in the sense you appear to want - zero risk - is an impossible claim for anything to make. And why the qualification belongs in a detailed report rather than a press statement - in short, why it would be reasonable to expect exactly the same statement to be made whether or not there are grounds for suspicion. In short the statement isn't the issue.
  5. But if you had looked but can't completely 100% rule them out it would be perfectly reasonable to say exactly the same thing, i.e. the statement itself isn't any reason to believe you've not looked and are trying to mislead. Someone might have other reasons to think you wouldn't have looked and have a go at you for those, but wouldn't have any good reason to pick at your statement alone.
  6. Then you fail to understand the implications of what you wrote. Go on, what are those grounds? All you've got is "they must be dodgy, so I'll assume everything they say is deliberately misleading." Now whilst I've always got a bit of suspicion for any large business to go beyond that and therefore simply assume everything said is trying to mislead goes well beyond reasonable assumption and in to paranoia. The "no evidence" statement, on its own, i.e. the thing you are picking on as evidence for your position, is not grounds for suspicion, for the reasons I've already pointed out more than once. Hypothesise what would be a reasonable press release statement if you were to accept, for the sake of argument, that they're entirely honest and above board. It would be exactly the same thing. You're doing the equivalent of looking at a picture of something and saying "if there's no evidence of Photoshop it must be a very good fake." Whilst looking convincing doesn't rule out a fake it is not evidence for one either. You're making the mistake of equating not blindly dismissing everything with naivety.
  7. What you're after pretty much amounts to requiring every single statement to be piled up with an absurd number of caveats and explanations and rejects sufficient terminology, particularly when we're talking about a press release summarising the salient points rather than a detailed scientific paper. And in any case you'd probably leap on those too, anything that doesn't say what nothing ever can honestly say - "the risk is zero." Unless there's some good reason to believe otherwise there's no need to spell out "... testing we have done." You appear to be assuming that there is some other good quality testing elsewhere that says otherwise, and that the statement is thus factually untrue. Why are you making that assumption? What should they say if there is no evidence overall? Exactly what they have said. You've got no grounds based on that phrase for assuming any bad faith.
  8. The use of "no evidence" was deliberately done, yes, because it was deliberately honest. There is nothing else that can ever be said about any similar risk. That's the whole point of the glass of water example - there's no evidence that that's harmful either. But even with that we cannot rule it out absolutely. If you do a billion thorough tests and all of them are negative then the best you can say is "there's no evidence." You can be very confident that the billionth and first test test will also be a negative, but never certain. "No evidence" is not obfuscation (well there's no evidence that it is...), it's just stating the reality of the situation as accurately as can honestly be done. You are arguing for a definition of "safe" that cannot be made for anything whatsoever. Nothing can be demonstrated to be absolutely 100% safe, but there's no evidence that lots of things pose any risk at all worth worrying about. But in this black and white world, deluded that there's such a thing as certainty, and unable to deal with even the slightest suggestion of risk, people go to pieces over it.
  9. "No evidence" is all you'll ever get for anything. That's how reality works. So you're right in that it does not mean "does not happen", but the same's true for drinking a glass of water. It's a meaningless statement that nevertheless looks scary and casts baseless doubt.
  10. That's history. I feel no guilt or moral pressure based on what people got up to who just happened to be from the same geographic area as I am, and who died before I was born.
  11. You could drag a random bloke out of a pub and get the most qualified speaker creationism has.
  12. That makes no sense at all. That's not saying that that isn't what the law is on the matter, I'm not arguing with you there, just that if that's the situation then the law is absurd, nonsensical, and highly unjust. If any part of a transaction involves fraud then how can the end result of it possibly stand? Shouldn't matter what the nature of the transaction actually is. You can act very illegally and have a perfectly legal outcome that completely screws over a third party? If that's the case then the law needs changing ASAP.
  13. No they won't, for the most part, at least not unless we pick them up and drop them there. Even if they knew that there was somewhere more suitable a long distance away, which they won't, most of them have got no way of getting there. Some migratory birds might manage it. Most creatures have no habit of migration. When there's a drought in Africa we don't get lions and elephants turning up in soggy old Britain. And in any case you've also buggered up the polar life. For the vast majority of species to find a new habitat without assistance the change needs to be gradual.
  14. Follow the arctic circle around and you'll travel considerably less distance than if you follow the equator (and to take it to the extremes, no distance at all if you're standing right on one of the poles). So (to oversimplify considerably, such as ignoring the actual distribution of land and sea) if you lose the use of land covering a degree of latitude at the equator but gain a degree's worth in Siberia that's a net loss.
  15. It does get ramped up on a temporary basis. Normally in winter but it even happened this summer. There are still a few coal plants left even though the likelihood of new ones being built in the UK is zero.
  16. We would, although the amount lost versus the amount gained would still probably result in an overall loss and more losers than winners. There's simply more land at the equator than the poles, due to the Earth being round. Other species mostly can't adapt as fast, even if the human movement doesn't directly mess up their habitats. So in these situations the consequences would overall be pretty negative. The nutcases claiming we're facing an existential crisis need ignoring but that doesn't mean that there are no issues at all.
  17. I doubt China wants to kick off WWIII.
  18. Is there though? Well there is up to a point I believe, there's a degree of encouragement of one sort of behaviour and discouragement of another that I think's reasonable, but I don't find a society that treats everyone like babies and has no tolerance at all for "sh1t happens" as being particularly civilised. There's a point where the methods of prevention for such things becomes more obnoxious than the accidents, and we've passed that point quite a while ago (although you can always find exceptions). We should only not be standing by and letting children accidentally kill themselves. After that it's up to the individuals. A society that seeks to treat everyone like children is one that's lost its grip on reality.
  19. The problems with it occur when people go beyond treating "survival of the fittest" as being more than what it is. What is is is an explanation of various traits in living organisms (and the concept can be expanded beyond them). Nothing more. When it's used as justification, when concepts like morality or purpose or the "right" way of doing things are attached to it, then people quickly go off the rails.
  20. And how does that number compare to the level of legal immigration? Of course as has been pointed out countless times before, but which Remainers love to ignore, leaving the EU was only one necessary step in dealing with the insane, unsustainable, destructive, catastrophic levels of immigration in to the UK. The other necessary step is getting some vaguely responsible people in Westminster, and with the bunch of clowns that make up all parties probably a harder one. One step has been made but we're still on the road, not at the destination.
  21. That's because it is, although the difference is very slight, too small to be easily visible on a photo and in most cases too small to matter for any practical purposes (the GPS model doesn't use it AFAIK although accurate navigation does require using the equatorial radius being larger than the polar one - still not easily visible on photos of the Earth though, the only planet where it is quite obviously different is Saturn).
  22. I know it wasn't directed at me, but, erm, people are people, no-one's going to fundamentally lack discipline due to being Indian or Chinese or anything else. On the other hand cultural differences exist (and none can hold up their hands and claim superiority in all areas).
  23. Although rapid warming will strain some environments to breaking point (and that's definitely not something we want to do) it often seems like more direct habitat loss is a bigger threat, although the two are linked (ever more human expansion and consumption).
  24. Is there even enough coal generation capacity left in the UK for that to be a meaningful threat? Sure, they'll fire it up when needed but it's still a pretty tiny proportion of the overall nowadays. But when it comes to power stations they can just chuck it on a big heap nearby. It's easy stuff to store, whether or not there's a risk of the few remaining ones here running short depends on how much they've got stockpiled.
  • 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.