It certainly was not true that 15% of the UK was "refusing" to take the vaccine two months ago, at a time when only half the current number had received a first dose for the simple reason they'd never been offered it.
At best that's wishful thinking from people who literally couldn't have had any idea what they were talking about, which is the worst kind of person to be so gullible as to uncritically believe.

Here you go

It's simply not possible to claim that the only people who have been offered an opportunity to be vaccinated is skewed data, when those who haven't had it haven't been offered it

Contrarywise, I'm going by whether people say they will want it, once it's offered to them. You're the one only looking at data for older people.

It's not that you worry less. It's that you've exposed yourself to the most ludicrous nutjob propaganda - which is plain because you're regurgitating the worst of it here in exactly the same form that it's promoted - and claiming it to be your own opinion, when it's equally plain that it's only "your opinion" because you're so gullible as not to see through the quite outrageous nonsense of it. As with so much else you offer "your opinion" on.

No, I refuse to be worried about it because I've seen the small number of people dying from it. I only worry about the likely.

Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.

He doesn't know jack about evolution, either. It's just a handy tool for him to deploy to justify being a misanthropic headcheese.

I know what evolution is, unlike you who hasn't bothered refuting my argument.

I know what evolution is, unlike you who hasn't bothered refuting my argument.

Nah. When you are shown to be factually incorrect about something, you either change the subject, or just drop it. The latter action is a primary reason for the extinction of your convo with Sid. Unfortunate, because watching someone like you getting so thoroughly cornholed was both hilarious and deeply satisfying.

Peter Hucker posted:
"What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?"

The reason the US Government propped up GM in the USA is very simply because GM was the single source supplier of ALOT of US Military hardware that if they farmed out to other companies would dramatically increase the likelihood of being stolen. IF the USA let GM go out of business then the US Military would also rapidly become a 2nd or even 3rd rate military in both defense and offense. GM took the loans with the understanding that they would turn their business around within a very short period of time or they would start losing all those military contracts and the billions of dollars that comes with them. YES those time lines were spelled out but no they were not made public then or so far as of today. Rumors persist that the US Government had already started lining up people to start those new businesses but that didn't happen right then due to GM doing what they said they would do. Today there are several makers of military hardware formed by those same people and GM is no longer the single source supplier of alot of the US militaries hardware although the US Government is highly involved in the security of the data to keep their secrets secure, ie how do you keep a tank from being disabled when hit directly by a bomb or how do you destroy another tank on the battlefield before they can take a shot at you. Military Humvees also used to be made by GM and they are also now made by a 3rd party, they now sell them to the public to keep the money flowing smoothly.

It only takes seconds for me to click on your name in this thread and find you're in the same country as me, which you can find by clicking on my name.

I have better things to do with my time.

Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.

I know exactly what's going on, all I didn't know was which grant you were claiming.

When you said "After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?" you don't have any idea that you're referring to CJRS compensating employers 80% of salary up to 2.5k/month for laying off employees or SEISS for the self-employed (your tradesman mate, presumably) up to the same limit of profits declared in past years. Or the grants offered, or the Business rates cut below a certain limit, or the Gov't backed loans.

It doesn't matter which it is, my point still stands, all this magic money from the government has to come from somewhere. Expect massive tax rises.

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

Err... because both the 2nd and 3rd "lockdowns" were massively less restrictive that the first one (the 2nd least of all). In the 3rd, my own employer was open throughout, as were many others.
That should've been obvious to everybody, but seeing as you don't seem to have understood the first thing about any of them, I can hardly be surprised you didn't notice this either.

I have not paid attention to what each of the lockdowns do in detail, as I've disobeyed all of them. Are you actually telling me people were truthful? You just tell the government you were badly hit by the lockdown again. It doesn't even have to be direct, it can be a drop in custom. The government themselves said they were "surprised" at the amount of people lying!

I can't. You can't. Gov'ts that issue their own currency all can and do. The US most of all, the UK not yet sufficiently.
Again, if you don't understand that, no wonder you're confused.
But wait until you hear about how private banks create money out of thin air with nothing backing it at all. A very different thing that's something worth you worrying about.

If you really believe banks and the government can do that, then you must also believe they could do it permanently, and never charge us tax again.

You've forgotten your own point.
I didn't claim you wouldn't get to hear about people you know dying.
You said "it wasn't that bad to get Covid19" because people you know who didn't have it bad said it wasn't bad. Well, obviously, but meaningless.

Unless you also talked to people who either died from it (before they died, obvs) about how bad it was, or people who had it bad enough to be on mechanical ventilation, or who had it bad enough to be hospitalised for it, or who had it badly, or sometimes not so badly, but who could never quite shake off the symptoms in spite of no longer having a live infection, because of the prolonged effect of the damage it did, then you wouldn't have any kind of balanced view of its seriousness. You barely have any examples backing up your point and certainly not a representative amount that allows you to draw any conclusions.

It's a big enough dataset to see huge numbers not getting it, and a fair number getting nothing more than a flu, and none dying.

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

I'm sorry you don't have any understanding of the significance of sample size. 6 isn't representative for any purpose,. Neither, if it even needs to be said out loud, is zero.

It's accurate enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. The error margin decreases as you increase the amount of data, but if I shot you 6 times and you didn't die either time, I'd say my gun was busted and I'd probably be right.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Extraordinary. No need for me to comment. It stands on its own merits, of which it has none.

I see you're incapable of making any arguments against my logical thinking.

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

You can't go grieving every death there is. People get run over all the time.

I work in quite a small business. 82 from 36,000 is <a lot>

No, it's 0.23%, you wouldn't even notice it, you probably get random fluctuations bigger than that all the time.

Your ability to draw conclusions from no information is remarkable for someone who is simultaneously able to dismiss vast amounts of data as unrepresentative.
It wouldn't be possible for me to drive more than I breath if my job was a permanent driver.

Yes it would, since when you're driving you're not breathing someone else's air.

As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.

Then wear a mask and stop grumbling.

It certainly was not true that 15% of the UK was "refusing" to take the vaccine two months ago, at a time when only half the current number had received a first dose for the simple reason they'd never been offered it.
At best that's wishful thinking from people who literally couldn't have had any idea what they were talking about, which is the worst kind of person to be so gullible as to uncritically believe.

Here you go

Congratulations.
In a report dated 4th Feb 21, when only 73% of the 4 most vulnerable priority groups had their first vaccine dose, and 27% hadn't been scheduled yet, a statement that said 85% reach would be sufficient for herd immunity was contorted by the worst paper in the country into an unrelated 15% refusal to take a vaccine, that 2 weeks later (3 months ago) turned out to be a 97.3% uptake (when a maximum 97.5% were eligible to take it up for clinical reasons) among those age groups and related cohorts.

And 3 months later you're still trying to use it as a statement that you're among a large group of people not taking it up as if that puts you into a mainstream viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint of outright cranks. It always amuses me, when some people will believe any old dross, that the only thing you chose to believe is the outright most comically ludicrous and plainly false drivel, while rejecting all the rational information out there. Do you have difficulties in discerning the lack of causal relationship between one piece of information and another, because I'd expect better of anyone with a reading-age above 10.

And you wonder why I repeatedly point out that everything you say is wrong and point out you don't have the first clue what's going on in your own country.
Congratulations indeed.

It's simply not possible to claim that the only people who have been offered an opportunity to be vaccinated is skewed data, when those who haven't had it haven't been offered it

Contrarywise, I'm going by whether people say they will want it, once it's offered to them. You're the one only looking at data for older people.

For clarity, you're saying you're right because you looked at a survey of what people <claim> they will do in the future, as against <what they actually did> after they did it. And you're still claiming you're right after we know what they did?
Extraordinary.

You remind me of that colossal prat Desmond Swayne MP who repeatedly made hysterical speeches in the HoC against vaccines, almost daily, then took the self-same vaccine on almost the first day he was eligible for it. And even he wasn't as gullible as you.

It's not that you worry less. It's that you've exposed yourself to the most ludicrous nutjob propaganda - which is plain because you're regurgitating the worst of it here in exactly the same form that it's promoted - and claiming it to be your own opinion, when it's equally plain that it's only "your opinion" because you're so gullible as not to see through the quite outrageous nonsense of it. As with so much else you offer "your opinion" on.

No, I refuse to be worried about it because I've seen the small number of people dying from it. I only worry about the likely.

You keep writing "no" when every word you say and claim makes it patently obvious to everyone you mean "yes, completely and totally".
By saying you "refuse" to be worried, you're confirming that it's contrary to any and all evidence. If it wasn't, there'd be no need to "refuse".

As I keep saying, I'm not worried either, but that's because I make the minor modifications to my behaviour to not put myself in situations that represent a risk.
And by doing so, I don't think there's a single thing that I've wanted to do and was available to do that I haven't done, through all the apparent "lockdowns". Not a bother.

---

It only takes seconds for me to click on your name in this thread and find you're in the same country as me, which you can find by clicking on my name.

I have better things to do with my time.

It takes less time to click and read and discover something you don't know than it takes for you to write that you don't know while remaining ignorant.
Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.

I know exactly what's going on, all I didn't know was which grant you were claiming.

What's apparent is you either know nothing or everything you do know is wrong - which seems to be the way you prefer it.
Not sure if I've already used this phrase here but "glorying in your own ignorance" seems to be one of your key aspirations.
Successfully achieved too, I might add. So much winning.

When you said "After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?" you don't have any idea that you're referring to CJRS compensating employers 80% of salary up to 2.5k/month for laying off employees or SEISS for the self-employed (your tradesman mate, presumably) up to the same limit of profits declared in past years. Or the grants offered, or the Business rates cut below a certain limit, or the Gov't backed loans.

It doesn't matter which it is, my point still stands, all this magic money from the government has to come from somewhere. Expect massive tax rises.

Not knowing which is a peculiar form of "know(ing) exactly what's going on"
Except not knowing the details is a big part of not knowing that your point falls completely.
Creating money is a fundamental part of what the BoE does.
There are a couple of reasons why creating money doesn't cost anything at this time, some of which I've pointed out, but you didn't understand them and you seem strangely wedded to an idea that doesn't now, nor has it ever existed, so it would be pointless for me repeat it.

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

Err... because both the 2nd and 3rd "lockdowns" were massively less restrictive that the first one (the 2nd least of all). In the 3rd, my own employer was open throughout, as were many others.
That should've been obvious to everybody, but seeing as you don't seem to have understood the first thing about any of them, I can hardly be surprised you didn't notice this either.

I have not paid attention to what each of the lockdowns do in detail, as I've disobeyed all of them. Are you actually telling me people were truthful? You just tell the government you were badly hit by the lockdown again. It doesn't even have to be direct, it can be a drop in custom. The government themselves said they were "surprised" at the amount of people lying!

Yup, not paying attention to any of the details is another odd way of knowing exactly what's going on...
As is guessing that the way I know is by what people claim they're doing. No, I'm not telling you that.
I'm reporting what the Gov't itself has detailed is being claimed from them under each of the schemes and how much it's costing them. <Inclusive> of what may be falsely claimed (which is certainly true and a lot of people have been caught for it, though why the Gov't were surprised is itself surprising as they seem to be populated in their entirety by liars, charlatans and conmen).
And the answer is exactly as I stated at the start - if you knew exactly what was going on, you'd already know that and you wouldn't have had to ask and I wouldn't have to repeat myself.
And the interest that's being paid on these Gov't loans (at almost zero rate) is <less> in total than it was before they borrowed any of it, which is why there's no need for any tax hike to pay for it.

I can't. You can't. Gov'ts that issue their own currency all can and do. The US most of all, the UK not yet sufficiently.
Again, if you don't understand that, no wonder you're confused.
But wait until you hear about how private banks create money out of thin air with nothing backing it at all. A very different thing that's something worth you worrying about.

If you really believe banks and the government can do that, then you must also believe they could do it permanently, and never charge us tax again.

Because I've followed this type of conversation before I know you're thinking you've found the flaw in this whole scheme.
Except... the BoE have been asked this question directly and it's become quite embarrassing to them.
Their current answer is "let's get back to you on that..." and nothing has been heard back since that I'm aware of.
The problem isn't that <I> believe anything one way or another.
The problem is that the BoE are struggling to find a reason why it isn't true.
And in the meantime, the same thing is happening in the EU, the US and the UK.

You've forgotten your own point.
I didn't claim you wouldn't get to hear about people you know dying.
You said "it wasn't that bad to get Covid19" because people you know who didn't have it bad said it wasn't bad. Well, obviously, but meaningless.

Unless you also talked to people who either died from it (before they died, obvs) about how bad it was, or people who had it bad enough to be on mechanical ventilation, or who had it bad enough to be hospitalised for it, or who had it badly, or sometimes not so badly, but who could never quite shake off the symptoms in spite of no longer having a live infection, because of the prolonged effect of the damage it did, then you wouldn't have any kind of balanced view of its seriousness. You barely have any examples backing up your point and certainly not a representative amount that allows you to draw any conclusions.

It's a big enough dataset to see huge numbers not getting it, and a fair number getting nothing more than a flu, and none dying.

Lol! I mean, even after you using the word "dataset" when you meant "sample size", still lol.
So you're saying a sample of 6 out of (checking) 4,446,824 is representative when, further down, 82 out of 36,000 is barely noticeable - that's one thing.
But zero out of (checking again) 152,848 being representative is next level.

You're obviously far cleverer than all of us, so please indulge us on how we should assess significance. And why the more samples out of a smaller dataset is less significant than very much fewer samples (or even none!) from a very much larger number.

Take your time. I wouldn't want to miss a step out of the workings of a master such as yourself.

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

I'm sorry you don't have any understanding of the significance of sample size. 6 isn't representative for any purpose,. Neither, if it even needs to be said out loud, is zero.

It's accurate enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. The error margin decreases as you increase the amount of data, but if I shot you 6 times and you didn't die either time, I'd say my gun was busted and I'd probably be right.

Truly, we are not worthy.
Could you run through this one too, if you can find enough time in your busy day? Please?

Because I won't hear it that you're actually a complete imbecile and you're not afraid to show us how much of one you are. That's not possible.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Extraordinary. No need for me to comment. It stands on its own merits, of which it has none.

I see you're incapable of making any arguments against my logical thinking.

It's not a matter of logic. It's a matter of fact
- Crashing while speeding does invalidate your insurance as you'll have crashed while breaking the law
- It's not true that the only accidents you can have are death (of yourself) or a small dent that you don't need to bother with
- I'm not worried by odds of 1 in 40,000 - that's what I said - but I account for it anyway, which is why I don't worry
- Whether you think the Gov't intrudes into your life too much or not, the law is still the law and you get convicted if you break it
- Conviction for speeding is a criminal, not civil offence, as is non-payment of a speeding fine

Don't argue these points me - the judge will take care of that
But bear in mind what I said "It stands on its own merits, of which it has none"

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

You can't go grieving every death there is. People get run over all the time.

You clearly won't. Someone will for every one. And when the ultimate responsibility falls to the Gov't, they'll be held to account (in any civilised country, which this one might not be)

As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.

Then wear a mask and stop grumbling.

You even seem to be extremely confused about who's upset. Blimey!

---

Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

The best part of my morning is sitting back with a cuppa joe and watch Karen get absolutely rinsed by you. And your stamina in keeping up with him/her/it is impressive, too. Can a get you a bottle of Gatorade, fam? A towel? Some salt tablets?

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

You're so ignorant that you don't know what is evolution.

It's very simple. 1000 people catch a virus, 10 die, the next generation doesn't have the bad genes in those 10. Since we've stopped that happening by protecting everyone, we will eventually become useless folk reliant on a lot of medication.

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

Dumb as a bag of hammers. Dumber, even. What a maroon.

Then prove you're intelligent by contradicting what I wrote with an explanation of what you believe evolution to be. Or can't you manage that?

Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

The best part of my morning is sitting back with a cuppa joe...

It's a little cruel, I know.
I'm try to keep the humour level high, but I've got a lot to keep up with. I have to stop laughing before I type

---

Then prove you're intelligent by contradicting what I wrote with an explanation of what you believe evolution to be. Or can't you manage that?

Nah. When you are shown to be factually incorrect about something, you either change the subject, or just drop it.

I thought that the point was self-evident, but assuming that you understand literally anything seems to be a mistake.

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

Dumb as a bag of hammers. Dumber, even. What a maroon.

Then prove you're intelligent by contradicting what I wrote with an explanation of what you believe evolution to be. Or can't you manage that?

I'm disappointed you gave up on giving me fresh opportunities to point out how risible all your views are, so now I'm going to have to address the most self-evident point of all, which doesn't really need explaining but seeing as I've got access to a lot of info I may as well do a number on this one too.

So we'll take Evolution to be the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, which right off the bat means it takes just a little longer than 15 months to take effect, which I did point out to you before but it didn't seem to sink in. But I digress... for now.
What you're referring to is the natural selection aspect of it, so weakness is recessive over strength, unhealthy is recessive over healthy, including reproductive health because that leads to whether recessive traits are carried over into future generations or not.

In relation to Covid19, I'll use ONS data which is for England & Wales deaths only (139,651 by 30-Apr) rather than all-UK deaths (152,704 by 30-Apr) because it's analysed more completely in the ONS weekly update. (Note, both are way more than the suppressed UK Gov't figure of 127,679 by 16-May, just to emphasise my previous point on that more explicitly).

One thing we all know is Covid19 is correlated most closely of all to age, which ONS confirms in that deaths age 0-64 are 15,905 out of 139,651 (11.39% or 1 in 8.78) and the rest 65 and above.
The other thing that no-one mentions but has been apparent from day one is that, of the 15,905 deaths age 0-64, the next highest correlation is gender.
10,112 are male, only 5,793 female.
So out of every 11 people who wouldn't be in the the kind of age group that might be dying anyway, 7 are male and only 4 female, whether rich, poor, black, white or any other confounding factor.
More men die than women anyway, but it's more 50.x% v 49.x%, not 63.6% v 36.4% so it's significant.

With that info, it's worth looking closer at the numbers and seeing what the mix is of male and female up to child-bearing age, which I'll call 49 for nothing better than arbitrary reasons (pick another age if you like - I've got all the numbers here). It'll cover the vast majority, if not 100%

Male deaths up to 49yo v total = 1,791 out of 75,903 = 2.36%
Female deaths up to 49yo v total = 1,148 out of 63,748 = 1.80%

Putting these two bits of info together, if Covid19 is of evolutionary consequence - that is, over generations - it would be pretty daft if nearly 8 out of 9 deaths are of the old rather than the young. It would be even more daft that those 8 out of 9 are of an age way above the reproductive stage of their life, and it would be daftest of all if it only affected between 97.6% and 98.2% of those already having had all the kids they're ever going to have.

All of this belies all of the relevant factors that apply to Evolution as a consequence of natural selection. By reaching an old age, none of them were so feeble as to not reach that old age, none of them were so unhealthy as not to reach their old age, nearly all had already passed on the allegedly weak genes to their offspring at an earlier stage of life.

The evolutionary consequences of Covid19 are therefore precisely zero (or so close to zero as to be zero on the basis that such a low proportion isn't worth bothering with, which I know you'll like, but this time is appropriate on an evolutionary timescale).
The main thing Covid19 does is kill people who are healthy (and sensible) enough to reach 60, 70, 80, 90yo and above, but within 28 days.
In short, it culls healthier older people.

Don't come back to me with how long people would've lived if they die at 70/80/90 compared to average life expectancy, because I've got access to ONS actuarial tables at the ready to show that life expectancy for those age brackets have nothing to do with average life expectancy and are considerably longer, whether with comorbidities or not.

Your line quoted at the top of this post was in response to this comment of mine

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.
Evolution is something that takes place over an extended period. No evolution is taking place regarding Covid.
It's a catastrophic event for humans, that only counts if it occurs within 28 days, so we're told.

All perfectly accurate and correct by me.
Tell me if you've heard this before, but every word you replied with was irrelevant and, frankly, bilge anyway

---

One thing we all know is Covid19 is correlated most closely of all to age

This is the only incorrect statement that I could identify in the piece. There's at least one of us who doesn't know that, because jamming your fingers in your ears and humming every time some facts enter your personal space leads to bliss, or something. And only someone who is ignorant of the most widely known and least controversial statistic about COVID (ever hear the slang "boomer remover"?) could come up with something so mind-roastingly idiotic as to say this is evolution at work.

It's notable what you didn't respond to. Tbf I can hardly be surprised

The only things I've snipped is where you're going over the same thing twice. You do talk a hell of a lot. Maybe you're getting confused because there's more than one post in this discussion, and I haven't replied to the "missing" parts yet?

I'm now wondering if you have problems with reading, because I haven't even considered whether airlines have gone bust during Gov't restrictions.
So I've just checked what's happened in the UK in recent years.

2017 - Monarch - were rubbish
2019 - FlyBMI - were rubbish. They blamed their collapse on fuel prices and "Brexit uncertainty". As if fuel never had a price before and doesn't apply to everyone and Brexit couldn't be seen coming for years by 2019
2019 - Thomas Cook - were rubbish
2020 5th March - Flybe - were rubbish
All before Gov't restrictions of any type.

Since Gov't restrictions 23 Mar 2020 - none

Please tell me more about how all these zero airlines went bust due to Gov't legislation over the last year.
Or, perhaps I'll return to one of my earlier remarks like "you being flat wrong about every single word you've said" or "I have no idea why you're hysterical about things that haven't happened".
We've discovered we live in the same country. I'm now finding that quite hard to believe, seeing as you don't seem to have noticed anything that did happen will obsessing over things you imagine happened, but actually didn't.

This whole discussion is about bust companies. Have you forgotten that? If airlines haven't gone bust it's because of the government stealing your taxes to prop them up. Otherwise almost zero customers over a year would kill off any company.

People do die all the time. That's not relevant in any way.
The majority of people die of major organ failure, or cancers, or vascular diseases or old age.
None of these are spread from one person to another, so no public policy on movement will change that. That's why we don't do it.
Infectious diseases are entirely different, particularly ones that are 3x as infectious and 3x more deadly for people who become seriously ill at an abnormally high rate and can result in death within a month for people who wouldn't otherwise die.
Which is what we've consistently seen.

Fortunately, our public health policies aren't determined by sociopaths.
I understand this is particularly upsetting for sociopaths, but no sociopath has died that I'm aware of and it wouldn't bother me very much if they did - on the same basis as the Darwin Awards are judged.

Let me make this simple for you, if the government made as much fuss about cancer as it did about the virus, we would have saved the same number of people every year forever, not just in one year. The virus is a little short term thing. Cancer goes on forever.

We've already established well enough that you haven't even got the first clue about any form of business, but as it happens (in my checkered past) I've written part of a policy on business continuation following a catastrophic event. The event may not be common, by its nature, but having an action plan isn't so uncommon.
Not that we've got one at the place I'm at now, I should add, but shortly after the 1st lockdown began last April I brainstormed an action plan on the hoof in a 4hr phone call with the owner that basically reimagined the entire business in the event of any permanent change to trading conditions. Who wouldn't?

So you want the airlines to branch out into what? Selling bread? The government took away their only way of taking in money, and they will still have their running costs - salaries, rental, land taxes, etc.

GM was (and remains) a very profitable company. The issue was cashflow, caused largely because the banking collapse meant car loans weren't available to customers in the normal way that cars are bought, and the same banking collapse prevented GM borrowing to see them through a temporary liquidity crisis. The financial market having collapsed, the Gov't stepped in to do the job the banks couldn't, GM sold off a brand or two, closed the less profitable models, paid back all the Gov't loans within a couple of years and continued on their merry way, employing lots of people and paying lots of tax since.

And yet I don't remember any other car company being bailed out.

When you mention "the next generation" here, are you seriously talking in terms of 20yrs more of this? Or many multiples of 20yrs, on the scale of evolution, of continued deaths and of lockdowns? Because I don't think you want either of those - most particularly because it certainly won't be you doing the choosing and I don't think you'll like the option taken.

What on earth made you take that from what I said? The next generation means the sons and daughters of those who survived the virus, whether the virus lasts 1 year or 10.

It's notable what you didn't respond to. Tbf I can hardly be surprised

The only things I've snipped is where you're going over the same thing twice. You do talk a hell of a lot. Maybe you're getting confused because there's more than one post in this discussion, and I haven't replied to the "missing" parts yet?

Why would I get confused. Facts don't change from one message to the next.
Well, yours do, mainly because you've never yet made a point that can be described as an independently checkable fact.
Nor do your points remain the same, as each one gets knocked down in turn.

2017 - Monarch - were rubbish
2019 - FlyBMI - were rubbish. They blamed their collapse on fuel prices and "Brexit uncertainty". As if fuel never had a price before and doesn't apply to everyone and Brexit couldn't be seen coming for years by 2019
2019 - Thomas Cook - were rubbish
2020 5th March - Flybe - were rubbish
All before Gov't restrictions of any type.

Since Gov't restrictions 23 Mar 2020 - none

Please tell me more about how all these zero airlines went bust due to Gov't legislation over the last year.

This whole discussion is about bust companies. Have you forgotten that?

<Looks up>, <looks back>
Which things about bust companies did I forget? The ones I listed that went bust before any Gov't restrictions, or the none/nil/zero that went bust after lockdowns came into effect?
You were supposed to tell me about them. You didn't. You couldn't. Because there aren't any.
You claimed companies went bust because of Gov't legislation.
You lied to support a point that wasn't true because you don't know what you're talking about.

If airlines haven't gone bust it's because of the government stealing your taxes to prop them up. Otherwise almost zero customers over a year would kill off any company.

We've covered this. The Gov't aren't using taxes to support the consequences of the pandemic. You complained about that very thing. Now you've made something else up to say that they both are and aren't.
You're lying to support a point that isn't true because you don't know what you're talking about.

Let me make this simple for you, if the government made as much fuss about cancer as it did about the virus, we would have saved the same number of people every year forever, not just in one year. The virus is a little short term thing. Cancer goes on forever.

You're not making anything simpler for my benefit. You're distracting to an unrelated subject in order to avoid the point of the discussion about Covid19.
And, of course, vastly increasing amounts of public money have been put into cancer testing and treatment over the last 25 years, which people of your sociopathic ilk complained about because of the cost.
It's pretty typical of those who think we should pay more for one thing rather than another are never interested in putting any amount towards either.

We've already established well enough that you haven't even got the first clue about any form of business, but as it happens (in my checkered past) I've written part of a policy on business continuation following a catastrophic event. The event may not be common, by its nature, but having an action plan isn't so uncommon.
Not that we've got one at the place I'm at now, I should add, but shortly after the 1st lockdown began last April I brainstormed an action plan on the hoof in a 4hr phone call with the owner that basically reimagined the entire business in the event of any permanent change to trading conditions. Who wouldn't?

So you want the airlines to branch out into what? Selling bread? The government took away their only way of taking in money, and they will still have their running costs - salaries, rental, land taxes, etc.

You make my point for me almost better than I can.
We've just had an easing of restrictions on flights in the UK from yesterday. My stepdaughter came back on a flight last week, my niece is heading out tomorrow, and (for reasons that should be obvious to anyone in the UK) rather a lot of people will be travelling next week. All on flights run by companies that didn't go bust at a time when no-one went bust, during a period you claim they had no income and couldn't manage their business and had to go bust - except for the minor detail that none of them did for reasons that didn't involve your one and only suggestion of 'selling bread'.
How did they do it then? The answer is in ways that you can't seem to imagine because, as I've said repeatedly said and you confirm, you haven't got the first clue about what managing a business involves.

You seem to think that, because of your almost complete and total ignorance, that means everyone else is as stupid as you and that means there's no solution. Except for the fact that people who do know what they're doing just did it.
It's not up to anyone else to explain to you why you're completely ignorant about everything. It's up to you to not be so stupid and ignorant.
If you go away, find out for yourself what's involved, what levers can be pulled, what costs can be minimised, what contracts can be flexed, what finance can be utilised, what support can be called for, and all the other things that can be done, and if that doesn't already fill in the gaps of all the things you don't currently know (of which there are many) you can ask a question while having some ability to understand the answer you're given.
Until that point comes - many years hence - it would be a whole lot better if you didn't open your mouth only to show us again how little you understand right now. That would be your best option.

GM was (and remains) a very profitable company. The issue was cashflow, caused largely because the banking collapse meant car loans weren't available to customers in the normal way that cars are bought, and the same banking collapse prevented GM borrowing to see them through a temporary liquidity crisis. The financial market having collapsed, the Gov't stepped in to do the job the banks couldn't, GM sold off a brand or two, closed the less profitable models, paid back all the Gov't loans within a couple of years and continued on their merry way, employing lots of people and paying lots of tax since.

And yet I don't remember any other car company being bailed out.

You don't remember a lot of things - that hardly means anything.
Speaking as someone in the UK, as you are too, I have no idea why one company went this route and others didn't (or even if that's true, seeing as most of what you say isn't). Maybe other companies had different options. Maybe GM was seen as a key industry. None of that matters, though, because everything that was done was unwound within a very short space of time with no consequences - unlike the banking crisis itself which still infects the world to this day.

Given that, a more interesting question might be to ask why you're even interested, given as it affects you as little as it does me. But I think we're now back on the subject of how you're disproportionately influenced by the propaganda sites whose disinformation you regurgitate verbatim without ever understanding or being affected by the issues they obsess about, which I suspect is the main reason why all your comments are such nonsensical drivel. Though it doesn't explain <why> you seem so obsessed with nonsensical drivel when there's a perfectly rational explanation for everything that you studiously ignore. But that's your problem, not mine.

When you mention "the next generation" here, are you seriously talking in terms of 20yrs more of this? Or many multiples of 20yrs, on the scale of evolution, of continued deaths and of lockdowns? Because I don't think you want either of those - most particularly because it certainly won't be you doing the choosing and I don't think you'll like the option taken.

What on earth made you take that from what I said? The next generation means the sons and daughters of those who survived the virus, whether the virus lasts 1 year or 10.

Given you're so far behind I'll let you catch up with the reasons why following generations are irrelevant to both Covid19 and, in fact, cancer too.
If evolution was a factor in either, all the people with cancer would die out and they wouldn't pass it onto their children, according to you.
That gets a "lol" from me, if nothing else.

---

I know what evolution is, unlike you who hasn't bothered refuting my argument.

Nah. When you are shown to be factually incorrect about something, you either change the subject, or just drop it.

Show me one fact that's incorrect. And you're not allowed to be OCD and say 11 should have been 11.7.

The latter action is a primary reason for the extinction of your convo with Sid. Unfortunate, because watching someone like you getting so thoroughly cornholed was both hilarious and deeply satisfying.

I have not been "cornholed", Sid waffles, I state facts.

Peter Hucker posted:
"What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?"

The reason the US Government propped up GM in the USA is very simply because GM was the single source supplier of ALOT of US Military hardware that if they farmed out to other companies would dramatically increase the likelihood of being stolen. IF the USA let GM go out of business then the US Military would also rapidly become a 2nd or even 3rd rate military in both defense and offense. GM took the loans with the understanding that they would turn their business around within a very short period of time or they would start losing all those military contracts and the billions of dollars that comes with them. YES those time lines were spelled out but no they were not made public then or so far as of today. Rumors persist that the US Government had already started lining up people to start those new businesses but that didn't happen right then due to GM doing what they said they would do. Today there are several makers of military hardware formed by those same people and GM is no longer the single source supplier of alot of the US militaries hardware although the US Government is highly involved in the security of the data to keep their secrets secure, ie how do you keep a tank from being disabled when hit directly by a bomb or how do you destroy another tank on the battlefield before they can take a shot at you. Military Humvees also used to be made by GM and they are also now made by a 3rd party, they now sell them to the public to keep the money flowing smoothly.

Ah, I never knew GM did military stuff. I might have known there would be an ulterior motive. Your government really is underhanded. Which party was in power when they bailed them out?

Peter Hucker posted:
"What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?"

The reason the US Government propped up GM in the USA is very simply because GM was the single source supplier of ALOT of US Military hardware that if they farmed out to other companies would dramatically increase the likelihood of being stolen. IF the USA let GM go out of business then the US Military would also rapidly become a 2nd or even 3rd rate military in both defense and offense. GM took the loans with the understanding that they would turn their business around within a very short period of time or they would start losing all those military contracts and the billions of dollars that comes with them. YES those time lines were spelled out but no they were not made public then or so far as of today. Rumors persist that the US Government had already started lining up people to start those new businesses but that didn't happen right then due to GM doing what they said they would do. Today there are several makers of military hardware formed by those same people and GM is no longer the single source supplier of alot of the US militaries hardware although the US Government is highly involved in the security of the data to keep their secrets secure, ie how do you keep a tank from being disabled when hit directly by a bomb or how do you destroy another tank on the battlefield before they can take a shot at you. Military Humvees also used to be made by GM and they are also now made by a 3rd party, they now sell them to the public to keep the money flowing smoothly.

Ah, I never knew GM did military stuff. I might have known there would be an ulterior motive. Your government really is underhanded. Which party was in power when they bailed them out?

BOTH political parties were a part of it as it was a bipartisan vote by Congress to give them the money.

Oh and BTW Chrysler got a bailout too so did a whole bunch of other companies although not as directly, they were a part of the 'cash for clunkers' deal that again was a bipartisan vote to get rid of alot of gas guzzlers and put new money in the hands of companies who employ millions and millions of people in danger of being without a steady income and having to go on what the US calls 'unemployment assistance' or in other words checks paid for by taxes to get you thru until you find a job so you don't end up on the street homeless. It was seen at the time of 'half a dozen of one or 6 of another' meaning they pay it this way or that way.

And yet I don't remember any other car company being bailed out.

Good god, you are a clown. A sad, angry clown, but a clown nonetheless.

All four major US automakers participated in the auto industry bailout. Ford didn't need it, but wanted capital to develop new technologies to remain competitive against GM, Chrysler, and GMAC, so they got government loans and lines-of-credit instead of TARP funds.

Anyone can take a few seconds to use Google and find out things like this. Anyone but you. I think that you are just an attention whore. Twit.