It's a crazy statistic, but true: a quarter of all premier league managers this season have been sacked in the last five and a half weeks! We've lost 5/20 already. There is so much money in the league now, and the pressure on managers to get results is just unbelievable. Even though Solskjaer is a favourite at Man U, in this climate it seems unlikely he'll remain in his post for long, unless results take a sudden dramatic swing for the better.

Wrong, and flat-out unsubstantiated nonsense.

Looks like the one post where you actually had a bit of a point was an isolated anomaly. Now we're back to the normal head-in-the-sand fact-denial. I'm not particularly surprised, although a little disappointed.

Weirdly (uniquely?) for one of your links, there does appear to be a bit of substance to this one. The BMJ goes into further detail here.

Two points to note are that:

1) The sub-contractor concerned, Ventavia, were only responsible for 1,000 participants (the full trial was 44,000), so 2 per cent (ish). Not enough to invalidate the trial.

2) I don't see any substance to the allegation that their trials results were "doctored up". The concerns highlighted by the whistleblower are:

- Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
- Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
- Protocol deviations not being reported
- Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
- Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
- Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

So nothing about falsifying data, more poor practice. The "doctored up" headline may be more to do with the fact that your original link is from the Russian news agency, TASS... who may possibly not be quite impartial.

A second employee has then (quote from the link above)

So, good that an audit has taken place, but questionable that Ventavia continue to work as a subcontractor on new projects.

Nope.


https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data


Note that the disclaimer relates primarily to the problem of under-reporting. We can also look at the data for excess deaths, irrespective of reason.

I think the complicating factor is who it affects. It should be personal choice as to whether you take something that affects only yourself. I don't think too many people would argue with that; it seems fair, reasonable and logical. If you have concerns about the negative effect of taking the vaccine, again this affects only yourself... however the crucial point is that choosing not to take the vaccine affects others.

Governments want to stop the virus spreading, they want to get the R value below 1, so that number of infections drops. If people get vaccinated, they are far less likely to catch and spread the virus. If they aren't vaccinated, then maybe they have natural immunity, maybe not. We are talking about millions of people, and it's impractical to set up a massive bureaucracy to argue with individuals on a case-by-case basis. So I don't think it can be considered a freedom issue when your choice affects everyone else in society.

Regarding the Bottas crash, does anyone think he brought it on himself a bit?

When I look at it, he definitely backed off going into the corner, under pressure from Verstappen and Hamilton. Three of them together, and one blinked. I think if it had been either Verstappen or Hamilton in Bottas's position, they wouldn't have given ground so easily, and so wouldn't have brought themselves close enough to Ricciardo for the crash to happen.

We've had Verstappen/Hamilton crashes that have been caused by drivers being overly aggressive. But I think this weekend it was example of the other side... a crash caused by a driver being too passive.

I'll concede I may have been overly harsh there. Medvedev is certainly the best of the new generation, and can challenge Djokovic sometimes. It's just that when Djokovic is playing at his best, he is considerably better than everyone else, Medvedev included. Djokovic is nearing the end of his career now, and the top-tier opposition in the form of Federer and Nadal (and sometimes Murray) has gone away. Djokovic was close to winning all the slams last year, but against a weakened field.

You are a representative of a website that sells ammunition for guns though, so this is to be expected.


I'm not American, and to an outsider the obsession with guns just looks bizarre. I appreciate that a lot of it is tied up in history, and claiming the continent, with dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.) and conflict with the native population... but how does any of this apply to the modern world? I can't see that "we should be free to own guns because we want to" is a particularly compelling reason. And I understand the second amendment, but again this is an anachronism, it's something that may have been valid in the US a couple of hundred years ago. Why would someone see this as important now, other than because "we want to have guns".... what other reason is there to have them? Why would someone who lives in, say, Manhattan need a gun? Other than to defend themselves against other people who have guns, which isn't really much of an argument.

Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely interested in the issue as someone who is looking at it from the outside.

They're going to dismantle inherited wealth? That seems unlikely.




You can try to position Trump as a valiant outsider railing against the system, but it's not particularly convincing. Before he became president, he lived in an actual tower of gold. He's a photo of his penthouse in Trump Tower, which you enter through a diamond-studded, 24-carat gold front door. I say "you enter", but of course ordinary people would never be allowed anywhere near. Trump isn't a 'man of the people'; that's just a facade that gets him votes. How is he anything other than a perfect representation of the 'powers that be'?

---

Edit (Nov 10): No comeback from anyone? In that case, this discussion is an easy victory for the Biden-votin' moms. Go moms!

You do realise there has been a global pandemic these last two years, don't you? What am I talking about - of course you don't... Plandemic! 5G! Bill Gates! Viruses don't exist!

It's not just the US that is experiencing price rises across food and other consumer goods. There is a global supply chain crisis. It's the same in my country, which hasn't changed government during the pandemic.
How do we resolve this? Well, you can do your part by reducing the spread of the virus... get vaccinated.

Religion is simply a mechanism of social control. It probably originated millions of years ago as a way to strengthen tribal bonds, and as our tribe size grew - particularly with the establishment of permanent settlements following the agricultural revolution - and our societies became more complex, it took on more of an 'invisible policeman' role... who better to enforce good behaviour than an all-powerful all-seeing eye in the sky?

But nowadays we have electronic records, CCTV, and phone tracking, amongst other mechanisms of surveillance. And we have TV, newspapers and social media platforms run by billionaires to tweak our opinions and nudge our behaviours in the desired directions. The only value religion really has in the modern world is cultural and historical. It has been supplanted in its original purpose by more effective, modern approaches.

Panic makes people panic sell.
Generally it can be because they are newish to crypto, and have never experienced a price drop before, they are unaccustomed to what is often quite large volatility, and the uncertainty amplifies their concern beyond what is reasonable.
But it depends on the coin. If they are backing some low-cap low-volume alt that has suddenly gone x100 in price for no discernible reason, and then started dropping, then panic-selling might be a perfectly rational response.

Yes, the start was the only interesting bit, really. Once Verstappen started to pull away from Hamilton very easily, it was clear that the Red Bull was considerably faster. The only real point of interest then was whether Perez could take second. But of course it was always unlikely, Hamilton and Verstappen are much better than the second drivers in each team.

The most exciting races are those where Mercedes and Red Bull are evenly matched. But of course even then one car has a slight advantage, which often proves crucial. What I would really like to see, although I'm sure it will never happen, is for us to have a season where Hamilton and Verstappen are racing each other as team-mates, so the cars are guaranteed to be perfectly matched!

The idea that anti-vaxxers consider the data is your most fanciful yet.

You're asking people to accept that you consider the testing process, efficacy, instances of certain side effects as a proportion of total doses administered, and death rate... and yet you consistently disregard the data when it's presented to you.


Yeah.

You could just look at the data, instead. You are far more likely to die from a blood clot after contracting Covid, than you are after taking the vaccine. Here's a study of 30 million people; it's quite clear.

As an aside, it's worth noting that you are also far more likely to die from Covid after contracting Covid, than you are after taking the vaccine.

Certainly you have a valid argument with the quote below, but a frontier setting in the 1700s is somewhat different to a modern metropolis where millions of people live in close proximity to one another.





Maybe we shouldn't be selling guns to people with mental health problems? Just an idea.

Scenario: Someone with severe mental issues is waving a gun around in a public place, shooting at people.
You have two choices. Should you
A) Take the gun off them, or
B) Give them a voucher for a free psychological evaluation?




I don't think this is much of an argument. The data show a very jagged line indicative of very low values. You can't extrapolate a rising trend from this.


https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/UK-Firearm-Homicide-Rate.png

Besides which...

Gun-related homicides as a % of all homicides is much lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

And the overall homicide rate is also vastly lower in England/Wales than in the US.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

I didn't watch it because a Djokovic match is usually quite boring, he is so much better than everyone else and always wins. The US Open was an anomaly because of the immense pressure he put himself under going for the 4x slams... he is a much better player than Medvedev.

Djokovic does seem to quite often lose the first set against opponents, but you always know he win come back and win, even when it's only a first to two sets match. The only time he's really going to have an opponent at his level is against Nadal on clay. Let's hope Nadal is fully fit in Paris next year!

Bottas got hit by Ricciardo, yes, but it was Bottas's own fault. If Hamilton or Verstappen had been in that situation, they wouldn't have got hit. For the reason, just look at Bottas and Verstappen going into that corner. Bottas gave away the position very very easily, he slowed right down. There were three cars level with each other, and Bottas backed off. Neither Hamilton nor Verstappen backed off, which is one reason why they are better drivers. Bottas slowed, which put Max into the lead, Lewis second, and Bottas right in front of Ricciardo. It was his own fault, and he ruined not only his own race, but any chance Mercedes had of winning as a team.

It's a weird situation, but yes they had to do something. It's the timing of the approval of the takeover that has caused the problem. It might have been completely different if it had happened at the beginning of the summer transfer window. But as it is now, they are in a relegation fight, and can't improve the team until the next window. As for how many players will want to move mid-season, to a club that is fighting to remain in the division, that remains unclear. It would be a really bizarre situation if they got relegated, but as it stands it wouldn't be unexpected.

Norrie has now lost his match, so I think that's the end of his chances of qualifying for the ATP Finals. There's no remaining tournament that offers enough points for him to make up the deficit, particularly as Hurkacz has won to extend his existing points advantage.
Norrie came close, and has had a great season. If he keeps it up next year, I think he has a decent chance of breaking into the top 8.