Rayvin

@Dr Gloom Do you have any thoughts on that BBC position mate? I'm not baiting you here, just curious.

Jeff Bezos apparently set to become the world's first trillionaire thanks to lockdown. Trillionaire ffs. That's more than most states.

The Mail hates teachers, it's always bitching about them being lazy and/or communist.

If that's true, there are literally no good journalists.

I mean absolutely no disrespect with this comment because i think you've made some valuable insights and have a good track record on analysis of this stuff, but is what you've just said your own personal opinion based on interpretation of the numbers, or is that what the wider press and scientific bodies are now saying? I only ask because one assessment can never be as strong as a body of assessments. And idk, I kind of hope you're wrong.

On the other hand, it makes the Premier League utterly invincible on the global scene, if this goes through. I just dont think they'll have the stones to reject it. It's not closing the door on this takeover, it's rejecting the Saudis full stop. And all they'll do is go and invest in another league and draw attention and money away from the PL.

There is surely no way that any PL club can possibly block this deal on the grounds of just being scared of the financial muscle. The only basis they'd have would be the piracy issue even if it's just a smoke screen. I still don't see how this doesn't go through really - even if there was something in the piracy stuff, how can the Premier League make that judgement outside of proper legal channels? Why would it risk that?

I think CT just wants to convince himself he isn't repeatedly voting for the moderate to far right tbh.

I don't actually consider myself far left, predominantly because I'm not a communist. I believe in a mixed economy, so I suppose it depends on the extent to which most of the Scandinavian countries are 'far left'. EDIT - I'm also going to stress that I appear to have far more concerns about the economics of the current lockdown than most on here. If not for the fact that the Tories had devastated the NHS in the years running up to it, I'm not sure I would have been pro universal lockdown at all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-boris-johnson-approval-rating-yougov-opinion-poll-survey-a9511611.html Starmer's approval rating exceeds Johnson's. Shame this is all happening in year one though.

I'm not saying it's fair - it's anything but. It's just that there's literally no other way forward if these industries are going to survive - at least as far as I can tell personally. If you eventually get the money back through insurance then ultimately, you're covered. I doubt they'll even be able to defer the holiday to the following year given the costs associated. How would they cram a year's worth of holiday goers into a following year, for free, while still finding a way to make any kind of profit. They won't man.

This is the truth of it. They're not doing it because even competent management would not have factored in an industry annihilating pandemic and they simply won't be prepared for it. Even if they went under trying to compensate everyone, they'd still not be able to pay everyone back most likely.

It'll be Gove. He's bided his time long enough and no way he'll let some relative unknown take it from him.

Aye that's the one. As much as I love Skye, it has no beaches remotely comparable to that one.

Ah, nice place although I've not been since I was young. You can hop over to Mull from there right? I remember at least one fantastic beach on Mull. Had a sandbank a little way out, and at least when we were there, we saw porpoises just a bit further out.

Whereabouts?

How relevant is it to consider population in these figures? It's the oft cited response from the right, and I'm curious. I can see the argument that a great population effectively means greater susceptibility.

Feels like a last minute turnaround. The Mail was running that it would only be 60% of pay earlier. That worries me somewhat, because it sort of implies that the government is paying next to no attention to the economics of this.

If the time trigger had occured, Ashley would have already pulled the plug, pocketed the £17m and run off to the yanks. There is no conceivable way that a £17m deposit was put down without every possible contingency being covered, and plenty of time for the deal to be completed. I suggest that there is probably a time trigger only because there will need to be some kind of exit clause for if the sale doesn't eventually go through - however, that exit clause will not be one which delays from the Premier League are capable of triggering. This takeover is going to destroy you, isn't it?

Ashley can't pull out though so who gives a shit what he thinks. There's probably a time trigger for completion in the agreement but he won't be able to just flounce off as normal.

I cannot understand this underlying assumption from the Tory voting Brexit brigade that their years and years of total apathy about science, economics, trade, medicine, whatever, has somehow armed them to go toe to toe with people who work on this stuff every day of their fucking lives, for decades. As if common fucking sense, not that they have any, is somehow of comparable weight to years of professional expertise and study. It's absolutely stunning that this is where we've come to. It's akin to communist purges of the intellectuals.

But your original example about car deaths being as bad is now redundant because your numbers were wrong. So we can now see that there is a far, far higher chance of dying from COVID than there is of being killed in a car accident. It's no longer a relevant comparison, you'd have to find something else with a similar death rate - and while I haven't looked into it for a while, I recall this is still roughly 10 times more lethal than the flu, for which we have a vaccine. So it's not like this is a small deal.

Here you go CT: https://percentagecalculator.net/

I'm curious as to whether or not CT is going to come back with an altered position based on this. EDIT - I guess not.

His repeated emphasis on data is straight from Cummings. Not that it's the wrong way to proceed. I'm not sure if I think there was much wrong with what he said - if the number is under 1 and they're actually using data to support what they're doing, then fine.