@robfay.bsky.social
I agree, but I'd also say that I feel like "heading a gambling empire" is one of those jobs where if someone's doing a good job, they're still doing a bad job.
December 23, 2025 at 2:09 PM
I agree, but I'd also say that I feel like "heading a gambling empire" is one of those jobs where if someone's doing a good job, they're still doing a bad job.
The photos in the article are credited to the researcher in the article, the one talking about the frogs being missing.
December 17, 2025 at 9:34 AM
The photos in the article are credited to the researcher in the article, the one talking about the frogs being missing.
Good to see sensible views, but there's a guy in there with the usual, "we didn't need this before, we just coped!" and no! We didn't cope! Thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of people died! Every winter! Flu is bad, don't spread it! And we know it works because we did it in 2020 and 2021!
December 12, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Good to see sensible views, but there's a guy in there with the usual, "we didn't need this before, we just coped!" and no! We didn't cope! Thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of people died! Every winter! Flu is bad, don't spread it! And we know it works because we did it in 2020 and 2021!
The NHS chief's messaging is fine, it's the "could consider" messaging that's fuzzy and causes confusion! Anyone who understands how flu spreads and how bad it is knows people with it should avoid spreading it; if not staying home, that means wearing a mask. Wishful thinking isn't an alternative.
December 10, 2025 at 7:42 PM
The NHS chief's messaging is fine, it's the "could consider" messaging that's fuzzy and causes confusion! Anyone who understands how flu spreads and how bad it is knows people with it should avoid spreading it; if not staying home, that means wearing a mask. Wishful thinking isn't an alternative.
Can someone please tell Starmer the expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a warning against giving inches to people who'll keep coming back for more.
Not an instruction to keep voluntarily handing over inches until they have 63,360 of them.
Stop giving them inches.
Not an instruction to keep voluntarily handing over inches until they have 63,360 of them.
Stop giving them inches.
December 9, 2025 at 11:10 PM
Can someone please tell Starmer the expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a warning against giving inches to people who'll keep coming back for more.
Not an instruction to keep voluntarily handing over inches until they have 63,360 of them.
Stop giving them inches.
Not an instruction to keep voluntarily handing over inches until they have 63,360 of them.
Stop giving them inches.
That shows it's an expert reasoned opinion from someone with well-established experience on the topic.
I think you're confusing "uninformed" with "objective".
I think you're confusing "uninformed" with "objective".
December 9, 2025 at 2:14 PM
That shows it's an expert reasoned opinion from someone with well-established experience on the topic.
I think you're confusing "uninformed" with "objective".
I think you're confusing "uninformed" with "objective".
Perhaps, but uncertainty about conditions potentially getting better is fundamentally different to uncertainty about conditions potentially getting worse.
The politicians in question may be against it regardless though, because for many of them it involves admitting being wrong.
The politicians in question may be against it regardless though, because for many of them it involves admitting being wrong.
October 30, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Perhaps, but uncertainty about conditions potentially getting better is fundamentally different to uncertainty about conditions potentially getting worse.
The politicians in question may be against it regardless though, because for many of them it involves admitting being wrong.
The politicians in question may be against it regardless though, because for many of them it involves admitting being wrong.
The implication that if "the top 10% of earners already account for 60% of income tax revenue" then they're already contributing enough doesn't follow. They pay that much because of income equality; whether they should be paying more depends on just how inequal it is. Not by what they already pay.
October 21, 2025 at 9:33 AM
The implication that if "the top 10% of earners already account for 60% of income tax revenue" then they're already contributing enough doesn't follow. They pay that much because of income equality; whether they should be paying more depends on just how inequal it is. Not by what they already pay.
I work in a Physics department, and despite not being a physicist myself, I regularly get emails from people who've chosen the path of ruin, trying to convince me to stop suppressing their insight. It's a real thing.
October 16, 2025 at 8:41 PM
I work in a Physics department, and despite not being a physicist myself, I regularly get emails from people who've chosen the path of ruin, trying to convince me to stop suppressing their insight. It's a real thing.
I honestly can't understand how the benefits from reducing the risk of illness to visitors, carers, and the cared for aren't apparent. Not everyone can afford a private vaccination.
By the way, are you the Lyndsay McAteer from the Green Party in Warrington? I'm a member, but not a very active one.
By the way, are you the Lyndsay McAteer from the Green Party in Warrington? I'm a member, but not a very active one.
October 14, 2025 at 8:26 PM
I honestly can't understand how the benefits from reducing the risk of illness to visitors, carers, and the cared for aren't apparent. Not everyone can afford a private vaccination.
By the way, are you the Lyndsay McAteer from the Green Party in Warrington? I'm a member, but not a very active one.
By the way, are you the Lyndsay McAteer from the Green Party in Warrington? I'm a member, but not a very active one.
Right? Just one prevented hospitalisation pays for a lot of vaccinations, not to mention the cost of potentially severe illnesses outside of that, and long-term impacts on health. It's baffling.
October 14, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Right? Just one prevented hospitalisation pays for a lot of vaccinations, not to mention the cost of potentially severe illnesses outside of that, and long-term impacts on health. It's baffling.
Even allowing for the absolute risk reductions being small (as baseline severity has decreased, presumably due to prior vaccinations and infections), that relative risk reduction is still significant, given the potentially serious consequences. But most people will have to pay for it in the UK. 3/3
October 14, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Even allowing for the absolute risk reductions being small (as baseline severity has decreased, presumably due to prior vaccinations and infections), that relative risk reduction is still significant, given the potentially serious consequences. But most people will have to pay for it in the UK. 3/3
E.g. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.... 29.3% effectiveness against Covid-19 related emergency department visits, 39.2% against hospitalisations, 64% against deaths, decreased risks across age groups, coexisting conditions, and immunocompetence status. 2/3
Association of 2024–2025 Covid-19 Vaccine with Covid-19 Outcomes in U.S. Veterans | NEJM
Amid the declining clinical severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and diminishing public uptake of annual coronavirus disease
2019 (Covid-19) vaccines, ...
www.nejm.org
October 14, 2025 at 3:21 PM
E.g. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.... 29.3% effectiveness against Covid-19 related emergency department visits, 39.2% against hospitalisations, 64% against deaths, decreased risks across age groups, coexisting conditions, and immunocompetence status. 2/3
Their risk of developing long COVID is significant. It's definitely not "very low".
October 1, 2025 at 7:57 AM
Their risk of developing long COVID is significant. It's definitely not "very low".
I think it's fair to paraphrase that particular quote as being directed towards black women in general, since it was inherently directed at those particular women BECAUSE they're black women.
September 18, 2025 at 12:37 PM
I think it's fair to paraphrase that particular quote as being directed towards black women in general, since it was inherently directed at those particular women BECAUSE they're black women.
Honestly, if Labour think they can defeat Reform by pandering to every demagogic talking point, they could just jump to the logical conclusion; defect to Reform, form a Reform government now, and just be Reform themselves.
What they're doing at the moment isn't really any less absurd than that.
What they're doing at the moment isn't really any less absurd than that.
September 1, 2025 at 3:48 PM
Honestly, if Labour think they can defeat Reform by pandering to every demagogic talking point, they could just jump to the logical conclusion; defect to Reform, form a Reform government now, and just be Reform themselves.
What they're doing at the moment isn't really any less absurd than that.
What they're doing at the moment isn't really any less absurd than that.
Wonder how many of those families are also being penalised because their housing is considered to have a 'spare room'. The bedroom tax is still a thing too, but people seem to have forgotten about that one.
September 1, 2025 at 11:14 AM
Wonder how many of those families are also being penalised because their housing is considered to have a 'spare room'. The bedroom tax is still a thing too, but people seem to have forgotten about that one.
Just read it, that's a great article. And I think reading it from a 2025 perspective shows both how long it's taken to push this framing to where it is, and also underlines that the approaches taken to countering it over that time have clearly not been effective.
August 27, 2025 at 12:36 PM
Just read it, that's a great article. And I think reading it from a 2025 perspective shows both how long it's taken to push this framing to where it is, and also underlines that the approaches taken to countering it over that time have clearly not been effective.
You're right, it is after years of manipulation. Farage et al got us here by talking about it for decades, when it *wasn't* polling as as mattering.
We won't get away from it by pandering to it. People need to talk about what *actually* matters most. That's what shifts the polls.
We won't get away from it by pandering to it. People need to talk about what *actually* matters most. That's what shifts the polls.
August 27, 2025 at 11:49 AM
You're right, it is after years of manipulation. Farage et al got us here by talking about it for decades, when it *wasn't* polling as as mattering.
We won't get away from it by pandering to it. People need to talk about what *actually* matters most. That's what shifts the polls.
We won't get away from it by pandering to it. People need to talk about what *actually* matters most. That's what shifts the polls.
"Following to fascism" was an example, Hence the "e.g." But for the record, following someone to scapegoating and demonising refugees and migrants is also a bad idea.
And I obviously think Farage should be taken on. I also think pandering to his demagoguery isn't the way to do that.
And I obviously think Farage should be taken on. I also think pandering to his demagoguery isn't the way to do that.
August 27, 2025 at 10:32 AM
"Following to fascism" was an example, Hence the "e.g." But for the record, following someone to scapegoating and demonising refugees and migrants is also a bad idea.
And I obviously think Farage should be taken on. I also think pandering to his demagoguery isn't the way to do that.
And I obviously think Farage should be taken on. I also think pandering to his demagoguery isn't the way to do that.
*Sometimes* you have to go to where people are. *Sometimes* you have to try to get the people to go somewhere else.
E.g. if the people have already followed someone to fascism, going to where they are is a really bad idea.
Also, "addressing Brexit" does not equate to "wanking on about it".
E.g. if the people have already followed someone to fascism, going to where they are is a really bad idea.
Also, "addressing Brexit" does not equate to "wanking on about it".
August 27, 2025 at 10:06 AM
*Sometimes* you have to go to where people are. *Sometimes* you have to try to get the people to go somewhere else.
E.g. if the people have already followed someone to fascism, going to where they are is a really bad idea.
Also, "addressing Brexit" does not equate to "wanking on about it".
E.g. if the people have already followed someone to fascism, going to where they are is a really bad idea.
Also, "addressing Brexit" does not equate to "wanking on about it".
The "won the argument in the sense the UK did it" part was referring to that in the sense the post you replied to did, the latter part was expanding on your own. Thought that was clear from context, sorry if it wasn't!
August 27, 2025 at 10:02 AM
The "won the argument in the sense the UK did it" part was referring to that in the sense the post you replied to did, the latter part was expanding on your own. Thought that was clear from context, sorry if it wasn't!
The alternative "ignore it and let's all keep being wrong together so we don't sound like we're saying some of us were right all along" strategy doesn't seem to be going too well to be honest.
August 27, 2025 at 9:59 AM
The alternative "ignore it and let's all keep being wrong together so we don't sound like we're saying some of us were right all along" strategy doesn't seem to be going too well to be honest.
It's more that it's an elephant in the room in terms of the future of the country and its relationship with the rest of the world, Ignoring the elephant, and who put it there, doesn't seem like the best strategy.
August 27, 2025 at 9:59 AM
It's more that it's an elephant in the room in terms of the future of the country and its relationship with the rest of the world, Ignoring the elephant, and who put it there, doesn't seem like the best strategy.