General Switch Discussion

[General Switch Discussion]

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!

[Formula 1: 2021 Season]

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...

[bad stuff thread.]

29 minutes ago, Happenstance said:

The guage on our oil tank musy have broken sometime last year as we ran out of oil unexpectedly last week so no heating in the house at the moment. Hasn't been too bad the last few days but now we're starting to hit zero I'm bloody freezing!

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?

[COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)]

2 hours ago, Dcubed said:

We are not at the point where we are vaccinating the 1) general public; we are still getting through the first set of people, and are only just now starting to include health & social care workers outside of care homes. 2) The “doubling” of the vaccine numbers will not get us to the point where it will have an effect on the R number any time soon; so that is absolute bollocks.  All it means is that you’ll have more NHS staff half protected, unable to get the full protection that the vaccine is supposed to offer.

3)We don’t know if the second dose will even work at all, because we have no data available.  The vaccine is completely untested outside of the 21 day window.

This measure they are taking is not based on any scientific data whatsoever. 4) It will not solve the issue of vaccine availability for the general public either.

This measure is being taken for one reason only, 5) to improve the Tory government’s optics.  That’s it.  There’s no virtuous motive here, instead they’re playing pretend scientist and are messing around with things that they SHOULD NOT be messing with!

Medicine is not basic maths; 6) you can’t just give a half dose and have half protection! That isn’t how medicines work!

The real way to get the R Number down is to put strict lockdown measures in place and actually strictly enforce them! That’s what the Tories needed to do months ago, and they are STILL fucking this up! Messing around with the vaccine dose regime (with NO evidence!!!) only puts us at risk of making the vaccine ineffective; which is the worst case scenario imaginable!

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

Quote

bollocks

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

Quote

 

Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, says: “This is not a simple problem. The idea that there is a definite clear-cut answer is not true because respected scientists differ in their views.

He adds that it is "simply not true to say that there is evidence that using the vaccines in a different way will have dramatically reduced efficacy".

"We have some evidence that the efficacy is quite good, and there are no reasons to believe it will show a sudden decline between three and 12 weeks."

 

 

Quote

 

Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine, University of Leeds, said: "Given the tremendous effort and investment required to mount clinical trials on this scale, it feels unwise to alter the Pfizer protocol – put simply, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…

“The Pfizer vaccine has been judged by JCVI to confer 90% protection following the first injection, yet there is no data to support how long this might last and what may or may not happen if the second dose is delayed.

"This is also difficult to reconcile with data showing that robust antibody responses are coincident with the second Pfizer injection at day 21 – without data on appropriate patients, we should not merely assume that these will be the same if second doses are delayed."

 

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?

[COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)]

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.

 

[COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)]

On 1/8/2021 at 7:29 PM, Dcubed said:

Sadly that’s not how things work...

We don’t know how long that initial protection lasts, we don’t know if a second dose is even effective at all if it gets delayed.

We simply don’t have the scientific evidence to support what the Tories are doing here.  They’re making a complete mockery of the trials that gave us the evidence we needed to actually use these vaccines.

Quite frankly, their use of the Pfizer vaccine is completely Off Label; and is not based on any scientific evidence at all.  It does not work like a traditional vaccine, we do not know how long the initial immunity lasts for.  They are using us as lab rats; and all just to boost their numbers up and make themselves look good.

What they are doing is incredibly dangerous.  It’s quite possible that it could even result in the development of a viral strain that is resistant to the vaccine, as it gets into immunocompromised people that aren’t fully protected.

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??

[COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)]

28 minutes ago, EEVILMURRAY said:

I thought they said there was "more benefit" with a bigger delay between the jabs? (whether it's true or not...)

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.

[The Trump Presidency...is Over]

22 hours ago, Rummy said:

Just to address what I felt was obvious given ourselves here - I never and was never referring to 'newspapers' as it were. I am not popping to the shop every day and reading just one news publisher's output. In this current modern digital world that just doesn't happen - and whilst you guys may be focusing on headlines and attention grabbers YOU see I'm talking as somebody who regular checks various different outlets and their output - would you be willing to find me one single site that is a UK media based organisation that DOESNT report on ANY foreign politics? Foreign news is still news. It always has been. We've always seen foreign correspondents. I am not critiquing main headlines - I READ the sections of papers where they offer their foreign news - yes I was being facetious but I compare news outlets within and of themselves as well as at the same time comparing differences between them. I won't pretend I'm taking some highly empirical approach to all this - but it seems all 3 of you have presumed I'm just popping down the local picking up the Daily Mail every day or something(who curiously actually had MORE prominent reporting than I expected to encounter on Melissa Carone when I was looking into that issue but thats just a nuance) - do any of YOU do that? How do you guys consume YOUR news? In a digital world its nothing like the newspaper world of old - and I don't live in that. I have millions of websites at my fingertips to explore - there's no need to jump just at headlines no stick to just one source. I presumed this was kinda obvious.

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.

[The Trump Presidency...is Over]

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.

[Brexit - UK negotiates a deal]

On 12/27/2020 at 12:15 PM, bob said:

Presumably it's not worth fielding good candidates in a constituency that they have no chance in though, which is an issue with the system. Implement proportional representation and you might get better people challenging.

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!

[Brexit - UK negotiates a deal]

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.

 

 

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

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

[Formula 1 2020 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!

[My Nintendo ( Club Nintendo Successor )]

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!

[good stuff thread.]

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

[The Trump Presidency...is Over]

I don't like the man in anyway. But I think his negative aspects are exaggerated by his position. The way he treated the media obviously didn't do him any favours in the way he was portrayed from that quarter. Also I think the majority on here (certainly the more vocal members) are generally leaning to the left side of politics, which again, echo chambers him to be worse than he actually is. I think he's a very damaged person and a good test for our compassion, kindness and grace.

I am sure he does have good things going for him, although please don't ask for any suggestions! But at the core, he is a person, I hope that he becomes a better person in time, and for his family in particular because this man is a role model and a large influence in their lives.

[The Trump Presidency...is Over]

18 hours ago, bob said:

It's not stupidity, it's a calculated move to claim that he won it on the night, and then point out that the Democrats 'magically found' enough postal votes in the coming week, and declare voting fraud etc. 

I like to try to see the best in people, especially where it makes no difference to me. I prefer seeing him as a stupid man as the alternative is worse. in any case it reveals negative aspects of the man as a person.

[The Trump Presidency...is Over]

Looks like Biden is going to win so you can all calm down! trump declaring victory was mad even for him, although in hind sight par for the course really.

Michigan is looking like the most likely potential upset on that prognosis, maybe Nevada. But if they went for Biden game over.

 

In fairness to trump, he has a 50:50 chance of being right - he or Biden are effectively already elected to be the president for the next term, but no one quite knows which one yet.So arrogant and stupid to make that declaration at this stage.

From a UK view point I really don't know which way will favour us most, I think a trade deal with the US would have been easier under trump, but would it have been a good deal... much less sure of that. Also will Biden being in office lead to Johnson taking a more diplomatic (and perhaps more successful?) approach to negotiations with the EU? impossible to know.

I do think trump did a few good things in his time as president, but even then in a bad way or for a bad reason/with bad indirect effects. Biden who knows, I think we'll get to find out.

I imagine trump has cemented himself as the worst US president so far with his false self declared victory - even his allies slapped him down a bit for that one!

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

On 11/1/2020 at 1:50 PM, BowserBasher said:

Well that was a different race but still had some excitement. Shame for Max there but Lewis showed he is still number one. Yes he got a bit of luck with the VSC but i think he would have passed Bottas even without that. Bottas had some damage and was generally slower. 
Merc now 7 time champs too. 

Even if Lewis won the race, I'd have preferred the vsc to have not helped him, ,aybe even to have worked against him (the incident that caused it happening just after he pitted for example!)  and also for vettel's car not to have gotten wedged under bottas' car so he could have put up more of a fight against Hamilton. considering the damage I think Bottas did very well

[COVID-19 (The artist formally known as Coronavirus)]

On 11/2/2020 at 9:16 AM, Beast said:

just like the flu, which will also kill people at this time of year too.

I imagine the flu won't do too much this year. With covid precautions, flu just isn't as contagious generally, with a lockdown it's not going to spread so much. symptoms from flu are much quicker to appear iirc which means people have a smaller window to spread it, with covid restrictions etc. and the immediate false positive it will give I think flu will struggle to do much this year. Sure there will be a few deaths but I think from a purely flu perspective deaths will be incredibly low.

 

I'm hoping that the general population are going to form some kind of appropriate immune response asap, that covid will become something more akin to the common cold in effect and that we can move on and continue our lives quite soon. these lock downs are really not on (not saying it's not needed, just that it shouldn't be needed).

My next door neighbour was talking loudly on his phone hhow his vibes are too high for him to catch covid. Hope so for his sake, but he's the kind of guy who would spread it far and wide if he ever catches it.

[bad stuff thread.]

On 10/5/2020 at 2:22 PM, Will said:

A chunk of one of my wisdom teeth just decided to go solo and break off. Doesn’t hurt thank god but looks like the tooth is dead inside so that’s going to need to be removed. Unfortunately my health insurance doesn’t cover dental so looking like a $2k bill to have that sorted out.

Had similar this week, a cusp of one of my molars just fell off while I was eating my breakfast. very odd experience. no pain in the tooth, but the edge was on the inside, everytime I swallowed I discovered my tongue brushes against that area of the tooth, and it felt like a knife edge. very uncomfortable.hope the rest of my teeth are in better condition than that!!

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

On 10/30/2020 at 12:48 PM, bob said:

Mongol as an insult isn't really based on someone from Mongolia. It's more to do with 'mongoloid' being an outdated term to refer to someone with Down's Syndrome. So if you call someone a Mong, you are saying they have Downs. 

 

I understand that, it's just not something I ever heard growing up, it is utterly void of meaning to me. I'm not saying it's fine to use it as an insult.

Having said that, I'm not sure individuals using "mong"and other such slurs against those with downs syndrome is exactly the worst thing happening to them considering the stance taken towards them by the state, in the UK at least.

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

I think Verstappen is widely viewed as the most likely driver to challenge Hamiltons dominance, which probably deters F1 from any real action. What they are scared of I don't know, maybe stopping him racing would hinder his development as a driver and make any potential challenge less likely next season? putting a stigma on him so if red bull lose competitiveness the next rival to mercedes wouldn't want to take him on?

Even Hamilton acknowledges his dominance brings a certain boredom to F1, deep down I think even his most ardent fan would like to see things come closer to the end of the season than has been the case. If verstappen were to end up stuck in a red bull team that either quits F1 or just becomes uncompetitive, who is coming along to attack Hamilton? Leclerc is looking good but if he were in a red bull would he be getting as close to the mercedes as verstappen is... we just don't know.

As for mongol being an insult, I never heard that until I was in my 20's, and again in an obscure situation like this. I don't find it offensive when I hear it used as an insult, just weird... kinda like if he'd called him any other nationality (other than canadian). Think something ought to be done though, even a symbollic slap on the wrist would be better.

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

good first few laps.

I like Hamilton and don't mind him winning, just want it to not be a walk in the park. Bottas seems to be closing the gap on Hamilton,

I was thinking about mario kart earlier.. I'm sure we've all experienced it. the first few attempts we can see big improvements, but as I best results get better and better, the improvements become slower and slower, and we level off and the improvements stop coming as often.

Well I'm wondering if Hamilton is hitting a plateau, and Bottas is still climbing... I'm not saying Bottas will beat Hamilton regularly, but I'm hoping he will get good enough that there are genuine questions about whether it will be Bottas/Hamilton who do best in a given race. I am seeing signs, I don't believe Hamilton is playing games, I believe Bottas is genuinely improving, and I'm hopeful that next season he will make the championship a lot tougher on Hamilton, and equally a lot more fun for the spectators!

 

Less hopeful of Red bull next season, but again I hope there will be some credible competition in the constructors side of things too in 2022, maybe even a much more convincing and closer P2 in 2021 (though red bull need a strong no.2 and other competitors need to sort things out! not sure I'll pin hopes on ferrari too much, though this weekend looks more hopeful for their driver!)

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

Thread's gone quiet!

Shame Bottas wasn't able to complete the race, pretty much the killer blow for any chance he had, unless Lewis has shocking reliability issues for the remainder of the season! Encouraging he was able to hold his own for some of the race, be good if he can push a bit more next year and at least keep us guessing a little. And even the red bull, if albon/ver's team mate if that changes, gets close to him too and the car becomes able to compete with the mercedes.