Pestneb

I was bored and considered actually getting a switch. looked at the games list. Looked at the games I have for my Wii U. Decided against it! On the pro front... Original switch was home console+handheld in one. Switch Lite = handheld only Could the switch pro be a home console only? effectively working like a gameboy upgrade (the newer console accepts old carts, but the new carts only fit in the new console?) Then when tech is cheaper /able to be made more portable, release a hybrid Then when its cheaper still, release the handheld lite version again? I understand the arguments against it, but it would allow Nintendo to put something out there closer to the competition while tech becomes cheap and effective enough to create the more portable form factor. Anyway, think I'll be looking a bit more at the switch successor, hope it comes out soon!

I don't mind if mercedes win again this year, as long as red bull are able to keep a realistic prospect of mercedes losing up to the last race or two. Read an article about rake of cars and how aston martin and mercedes are most heavily affected, shifting design philosophy completely would be a big gamble, but it could be that mercedes will need to consider it for 2022. Could be time for Hamilton to start looking at his options away from mercedes, he is after all only under a 1 year extension...

Makes you feel for people who lived before central heating! If you have an old tv lurking somewhere, I find they are pretty effective heaters, in a small room that is reasonably insulated they should be able to push things up a few degrees. Also, moderate exercise is good at warming you up, they aren't called calories for nothing! How long before you get a top up on your oil?

1) General public - what's your definition? I would say that a segment of those being vaccinated now fall into that category, or if you want to argue specific groups being targetted means it isn't the general public then tbh I don't think any vaccine is ever given to the general public, it's always specific age ranges or risk factors (ie tetanus if you haven't had a booster in 10 years and get a qualifying injury) 2) I never said single dosing would significantly (or even slightly) lower the R number - please read the section you bolded. The individuals being injected at the moment are those most likely to develop severe symptoms and require hospital treatment. So yes, it is absolute to suggest the R number will be significantly affected - equally from my understanding the R number isn't necessarily a reflection of the current situation, but it does strongly suggest very short term we can expect a 6% or so increase in covid related burden in the NHS and that likely requires some sort of timely mitigation 3) afaik they are testing outside the 21 day window, there is no public data available (though possibly some unpublished) however it is possible to use experience and knowledge of other vaccines to extrapolate and make an reasonably educated guess how this will affect immunity. It is worth bearing in mind that with the SA variant, it is possible that a later booster that is less narrow in its protection will be necessary even if the second dose is given at the recommended time. 4) Again I didn't say this would solve vaccine availability, it is buying some time while vaccine ability issues are resolved. It's absolutely a sub optimal approach, but until the infrastructure is in place and coincidentally non covid issues ease in the NHS, it does make some sense. 5)Yes, it is fairly bad optics for any government if the health service is allowed to collapse. I would also suggest it's less than ideal for the affected populace as well. 6)I couldn't agree more, you are quite right, a single dose isn't half protection, it gives greater protection than that for the initial tested period. Protection offered beyond that is unknown, but hopefully adequate. 7) I agree a strict lockdown would be my preferred solution, and imo far less destructive at all levels than these repeated "gentle" lockdowns that damage society, the economy, health system.. the uk in generally really, far more effectively than they hamper the spread of the virus. Schools certainly should not be physically open imo, shops shouldn't be open to the public, deliveries should be made in full ppe etc. but equally I can't see that passing parliament. Anyway, I am sure we won't agree on the single vaccine dose in general, but I imagine we can agree that the sooner they begin giving second doses (ideally in the recommended time frame) the better. For me I think that once they have vaccinated over 70's and those who are clinically very vulnerable, they definitely need to be following the recommendations, because the NHS caveat loses it's potency the less vulnerable the target population becomes. I also hope that the second dose efficacy doesn't become reduced when received later, and basically that covid can become a thoroughly unpleasant memory sooner rather than later. https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-06/is-the-uk-right-to-extend-period-between-covid-vaccine-doses Think those two are more qualified than both of us DCubed, I'd say I sit pretty much with Prof. Evans on this, while you're more Dr Griffin?

seriously though, once you're dead, long term effects don't really matter so much do they? Do you realise how close we are in certain parts of the country to the NHS hitting 100% capacity? So imagine you're in a vehicle/walking along a path to do food shopping. A car hits some ice, loses control, hits you. You need medical attention promptly, but your injuries are survivable. Oh. wait, no they aren't.. the 2 vaccines in two weeks approach was taken. NHS staff ill, large numbers of the elderly in covid wards, no beds available. The ambulance that ought to have taken you to a hospital is queued up waiting to drop a covid patient who's dying in the ambulance.. no beds for that poor sod either. Still, at least the tories followed the guidelines on vaccination. That's the situation we are in, which people don't seem to understand. the R number is 1-1.4 IN this lockdown. that means cases are going up. If we can't cut down the numbers being hospitalised then the above scenario is possible. In regards to the vaccine being different, the immune systems they are working on are not. the immune response may in fact be better/prolonged with this method. as you say we don't know. So as we don't know, is it worth the gamble of assuming that the 6 weeks is fixed in stone, when we know, with things going as they are, if we follow the 6 weeks it is sure that people will die? It's pretty much like paying £5000 for a lottery ticket where you may win £6000, or you may win £0. The risk/reward ratio is wrong. Yes in 6 weeks we are unsure if these people will continue being covered, but we are sure that other strains on the NHS will be diminished so the NHS will be better able to deal with covid. Supply of the vaccines will be higher which will mean that getting the second dose (or a 3rd boost maybe) for vulnerable people will be feasible.

So, if you have two friends who are vulnerable, in the next 2 months they will contract covid. Without the vaccine they will suffer from the worst of covid. (ie die, long term health issues). You'd rather have one vaccinated and covered for however long it lasts (hey, guess what, we still don't know how long even the double dose is effective for!), over having both receive a single dose and at worst suffer a cold? This vaccine isn't that radically different from other vaccines, the immune response it provokes is unlikely to stop working at all after 43 days, and the efficacy of the second dose may be affected, but it could be improved for all we know. What we do know is that using the single dose approach at this point WILL protect the NHS and save lives. If in a few weeks time data becomes available that suggests the gap is too long to give the best effect from the vaccination program, then is the time (when strain on the NHS will hopefully have been greatly reduced) to change tact. Short term, if they insisted on giving the two doses at the recommended gap it would, at this stage with low supply, result in avoidable death and suffering. I sincerely hope your intention isn't to influence things toward that outcome??

yup. If they can give 200 jabs over x time, they can give either 200 people 65% immunity or 100 people 95% immunity. So it's simple maths, 200*.65 = 130 100*1=100.(technically 100*.95 but theoretically boosting the vaccine to 100% immunity still leaves it falling short to any vaccine that gives above 50% immunity) greater effect short term by giving one dose to more people. the risk involved is that it's unknown how long the 65% will last, and if the 100% comes with the second dose after a larger gap. It's an educated guess, but right now given the time of year and stress the NHS is under, even if the vaccine proves ineffective and a third booster is needed, it probably is going to save more lives by taking this gamble. the 65% is I understand 100% protection against severe disease, so the main benefit is relieving pressure on the NHS. If it works out well (we won't know for some time yet) they can continue, if it goes very badly (we may find that out much sooner) then they back track and follow the original schedule. I think the fact it is winter and the NHS is annually heavily burdened at this time figures quite heavily into making a single dose approach a reasonably wise one.time will show if it was the correct one.

I used newspapers as an example, I was referring to media in general for the majority of my post, so yes it was obvious you weren't just talking about newspapers. I also didn't say outlets never cover foreign events. Of course they do. But there is a question of relevance and interest. The further out things are the more interesting they have to be to be considered newsworthy. I didn't presume you read a single source. tbh I don't care particularly if you read every media source in the world in every language, every single last word of it. it wouldn't suddenly validate for example "the point being any and all media that vilified Jeremy Corbyn should surrly rightfully be vilifying Trump for this pretty illegal looking phone call. " if I told you I head read every scientific journal in the world, every non fiction article/book/internet forum post, it wouldn't validate me in the least if I were to, for example, claim that "mount everest is a hoax, it is in fact the worlds shortest mountain". So please, why on Earth should a British based media organisation who published articles discrediting Corbyn, a potential holder of the highest political position in their country, therefore be compelled to vilify the out going president of another nation for doing something that has no influence on his own nation (afaik the guy didn't go and find extra votes right?) yet alone the UK... Quite frankly I don't see that it would achieve anything. It tells us nothing new about Trump, it doesn't expose an unknown fact, it doesn't give useful information, call for action amongst the population. It basically holds as much merit as an opinion piece simply pointing out Trumps character faults. Not exactly an edifying or meaningful use of one's time is it? I don't have time these days to "consume" much news, generally too busy working and then looking after my daughter. I understand that makes your opinion far more valid than my own and I apologise for questioning your superior position! But back when I was single I did "consume" a wide range of media including foreign media (restricted mainly to French/Spanish/Italian because I found translations weren't satisfactory enough and those were the only languages I was fluent enough in.) I recognise there may have been changes in the media in the last few years, but I do recall seeing drastic changes in what foreign news was discussed according to which country the media came from. I suspect this is to do with economical, political and cultural particularities of said countries. Going back to your original point about Trump, plenty of media has given him a negative coverage, I've not seen any particularly positive spin, but that is likely because most of the news I get these days comes from fb/google/bbc. Where have you found these hyper positive articles you have read recently? the only outlet I recall apparently giving strong positive feedback has been FOX news, who I believe ditched Trump by and large since he lost the election.

Sorry Rummy but in terms of relevance and interest, potential PM of the country is of greater relevance and interest than the President of any other nation. The US, China and Russia are notable nations, but we don't hear about every stupid/morally dubious thing they do. at the moment, basically trump is having a tantrum, it isn't "news". News would be trump taking it on the chin, and behaving like an adult and following rules and protocols etc. Reporting on what he's upto now would be akin to saying "and today, there wasn't an earthquake in London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid..... etc etc. Utterly uninteresting. "the point being any and all media that vilified Jeremy Corbyn should surrly rightfully be vilifying Trump for this pretty illegal looking phone call. " I don't see why. As ronnie said, the UK media focuses on the UK, the rest of the world is more peripheral. as you mentioned, the media don't mention most things, but it's not possible to. the sheer volume of "news" is too great, so they have to choose things based on interest, relevance and newsworthiness. Trump having a tantrum and breaking rules/norms is very far from newsworthy in it's own, Would you rather have a new paper full or the crap trump has done, or something looking at covid, brexit etc. it's a lot closer and relevant, it's not because the media love trump. sure media bias exists (including "fine" media you love. it all has some bias, no matter how much they may try to avoid it, but it's not always the reason they ignore subject matters.

Maybe but I think they don't actually have these mythical good candidates. Look at the conservatives up North, they won strong labour seats, so even "strong" seats can be won. I just think they have so few viable candidates that they put them in stronger areas to make sure they get the seats, then they don't have any left for the trickier seats. Frankly the thought that the candidates fielded for lib dems and labour in my area are within the top 600 or so candidates fielded is a tiny bit depressing. If they have better candidates get them here and have them improve their vote share, one election to get a lot closer, next election win the seat. Basically both parties are rubbish or too unambitious is the conclusion I have to draw. I'd be unsurprised to find the same is true for the conservatives in many areas in the country. The PR system is hugely flawed as well - all systems have weaknesses, I recall the lib dems I think pushed for a vote on a change in the system when Clegg was deputy PM, I don't think it failed just because it was the wrong system, but because any change I have seen breaks things that are "right" with the current system as much (or occasionally more) as they fix things that are "wrong". With our current system the MP is meant to be our voice in parliament. Most people seem to try to vote for the government which isn't what our system is about. PR changes more to voting for the government but from the implementations I have seen explained, they tend to remove or severely weaken or at worst completely ignore the local voice and tbh potentially disenfranchises certain voters in a more aggressive way imo. I am not saying that the current system is even close to perfect, but it does have strengths that are often over looked, which means they are under played. When I vote I look at the voice the candidates are going to be giving my area, and vote for the one closest to my own, which meant I didn't take the time to vote at the last election. Part of that voice is the prime minister they are supporting, but it isn't the entirety of the voice. How they are going to support their constituents, which in many ways includes the sub groupings they are in and the influence that gives them. A single MP standing against a topic is unlikely to have great influence, a small group of 10 has greater influence, 50 starts becoming a force to be reckoned with etc.) That's just what I do I appreciate no one way is correct but taking Brexit as a recent democratic example, I feel a vast majority of votes on both sides were misinformed (actually I would argue 100% of us were) by both sides and very few people had the information requisite to make a balanced and fair decision. I certainly didn't feel either side had won the argument and dearly wished there had been a status quo option so we could ditch Camerons disastrous alterations. Anyway, voting in an informed way takes time and understanding, as a consequence a number of individuals simply look at the party, or a headline with no substance etc. This is the biggest fault in any system imo because it is more about who manipulates more effectively rather than who has the best ideas or even at least intentions. At the end of the day most people consider the best system to be the one that gives your favoured candidate/party the most power, and I think this is the greatest underlying motivation in any desire for electoral reform. The most honest "reform" would be using the education system to explain openly, clearly and plainly how our system works to secondary level students and for the local media to give a thorough but understandable breakdown of local candidates, as well as unbiased coverage of all parties rather than just the biggest 5/6. But I can't see that happening!

I don't think the system needs massive tweaking. But the parties need to get their act together. My area is strong Tory, has been all my life and it's not even close. But looking at the labour and lib dem candidates, I couldn't inflict that on the country. If the lib dems/Labour want to stand even a slim chance they need to get better quality candidates. I like the idea of having a shadow mp, where they get minimum wage, with that money coming out from what the main mp would have gotten. Maybe have it so a shadow mp needs to get 66% of the number of votes the winner got and have secured 2nd position. Maybe they don't get to vote (or give them a 1/4 vote in the house of commons??) but they can still be present and give an alternative view from the main mp on constituency issues? Just thinking it may encourage the main opposition of actually fielding viable candidates.

if not too late Pole Russell P1 Russell P2 Verstappen P3 Perez P4 Leclerc P5 Albon FL Russell I'd say Bottas will get a race ending issue with his car.. engine, gear box puncture or w/e. Maybe he'll lead the race but in the last 10 laps or so something will happen and he'll be forced to retire - he does seem to be like a kirby for any debris on the track this season

I think they should just double up the circuits they attend. But.. I think they should limit drivers to only competing in half the races in a year. My thinking on this being they could then have effectively B teams, allowing more racers to experience F1 and mix things up a bit. it could also remove another schumacher/hamilton era, sure they may win most of the racers they race in, but then there would be the races they didn't race in. Also it could add in another level of tactics. For example, taking this season, Verstappen picks obv. the tracks that best suit him and his car, does hamilton do likewise, leaving many of the races for verstappen to win? how do teams pair up drivers, would it be their "A and B" combo like now, or A and C, B and D, or maybe A and D with B and C? I know teams say it takes a toll week in week out, but I think it would be interesting, they could maybe employ twice as many people, or have apprentices or w/e, I know that brings a cost but again, it could bring interest. I'm sure the teams wouldn't like it, but as a fan, you could follow 1/2 or 3 drivers, or watch every race according to your interest, and I think it could open the championship, Imagine for example if Hamilton and Verstappen never raced against each other. And maybe have a grande finale race where only the top two (in terms of championship points) drivers from each team could take part. But I think I have drifted into the realms of fantasy here. Not in the predicting game, but my prediction: Hamilton Bottas Verstappen. If the result is different (particularly with Hamilton not in the points at all) I will probably be happy (nothing against Hamilton just it's too boring seeing him 1st most races!!) I really hope mercedes somehow manage to mess up big way next year some how!

This is making me quite sad in a way. I remember my first console I ever bought, a nes, I've always owned a Nintendo console, and invested really heavily in them. The Wii weakened my interest quite a lot, combined with life keeping me busy, but I got hooked back in with the Wii U. But I look at the switch and these rewards and there's very little interest now. I think it's partly from getting burned with smm, when they basically stopped me being able to interact with my nephew. Killing off the wii u, kinda killed off my interest. Pretty different to any other time I cooled off on them, Maybe when my daughter is a bit older I might get back into Nintendo a bit more, I hope so. I've been playing Nintendo land a bit with my nephew, and I still really enjoy it... but it feels like I've lost a lot of .. something.. that I felt when playing a Nintendo console, I'm just pretty neutral toward them. I feel like I have turned to the dark side :'D Might just be that I'm getting boring in my old age though!

Congratulations. bob, and good luck! I hope you like coffee!!