I can't tell if you are trolling, or genuinely don't understand. If you're trolling, then well done, you got me. If you genuinely don't understand, then this should help.

Your logic is appalling. Some people who smoke heavily all their lives don't get lung cancer... therefore smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, right?
Some ​people who wear parachutes when jumping out of a plane die on landing... therefore we may as well all jump out of planes without wearing parachutes?
 


Well, you used the word, so let's use it again.

There is no standout player yet. There are a lot of potentially great up and coming players, Raducanu and Fernandez being the latest, but there are plenty of others who emerged in previous years, Swiatek and Coco Gauff are just two examples. There are a lot of potential world-class players there, but no-one has yet shown the consistency to win tournament after tournament and be a nailed-on favourite. Perhaps in the next couple of years one of the players we already know about will cement themselves at the top of the game. But for the moment, the variety keeps it exciting.

He will certainly score a lot of goals, and he will certainly sell a lot of shirts, and he is certainly - at whatever age - a statement signing. I just don't think he's the answer to their problems, and is not the type of player to turn them into a team that will challenge for the league title.

I certainly not saying he's a bad player, he's an all-time great and his record speaks for itself. It's just maybe not the best way that they could have spent the money.

They are a great team (in fact great squad), and they certainly have a chance. They've improved considerably with the addition of Lukaku. My only reservation I suppose is what happens if Lukaku gets injured? I think Man City would then be the favourites for the title.

It's part luck of course, but also a large part is judgement, both personal and on the part of the team strategists. If a driver who is in the championship battle has to take a penalty and start from last place, a lot of thought will go into it to determine which is the best race do so... somewhere where overtaking is easy might be the logical choice.

Ronaldo is a good player of course, but he comes with a huge financial outlay. I do think the money could have been better spent elsewhere. He will score goals for the team, but he doesn't solve any of their weaknesses. I don't think he improved Juventus when he went there, and I don't think he'll improve United either. It's obviously a huge club, and Solskjaer is a fan favourite from his playing days, but even so, there will be pressure on him to succeed sooner rather than later. Ronaldo I think is not the answer.

Not sure if anyone has seen this, but Andy Murray has lost his wedding ring. He normally loops it into the laces of his shoes when he's playing... but now he has had the shoes stolen, with wedding ring still attached. I hope he gets it back. Presumably he'll offer some sort of reward to encourage the thief whoever "finds" it to return it.

Perhaps this might influence his chances of winning his first match at the tournament? Surely there will be some psychological effect.

I can see that it's an imposition. But it's not a freedom issue unless the consequences of both action and inaction affect only you. With the Covid vaccine, your action of taking the vaccine may give you side effects, so affects only you, but your inaction in refusing to take it affects others, because you increase the chances of them contracting the virus. The argument against this, that everyone has been offered the vaccine, so by refusing to take it you are only increasing the risk to others who have refused... is relevant only in an idealised situation that doesn't exist in the real world. There are for example plenty of people who can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, and people who are too young to take it, and there is still of course cross-border travel.

My analogy of someone waving a gun around in a public place, if somewhat dramatic, is pertinent.




If you are angry about lockdowns and other restrictions, then blame the anti-vaxxers... they are the ones preventing effective herd immunity.



I don't trust companies, who are motivated by profit, or members of the government, who are motivated by self-interest. But the data are clear.

It's a novel virus. There is no pre-existing immunity. You get immunity by either catching it, or taking the vaccine.


You don't understand what 'comorbidities' means. If you are questioning reason for death, simply look at excess deaths, from any reason.


Do you have data to support this blatant untruth?


I understand, yes.

 
So look at excess deaths from any reason. I've posted the data and the charts many many times. There's no need for me to do so again.

Yes, Barca can't afford anyone at the moment, certainly not someone as expensive as Sterling.
The problem big teams have when they sell their good players is that they not only lose the player, but they also give him to one of their rivals, to improve their team... so it's a double hit. If he did leave City, it would certainly be to a major team in Europe, likely City would refuse to sell to a domestic rival.

I do find it difficult betting on tennis, but also on individual sports in general. Team sports seem to be a little bit more predictable, I suppose because any individual superb or terrible performances or injuries tend to be smoothed out across the team as a whole. If a footballer has a bad game, that's only 10% of your outfield players, the other 90% can compensate. If a tennis player plays badly, they've lost.

I think everyone understands that lockdowns are only ever meant to provide a temporary respite. They will not eliminate the virus entirely. Rather, they are used to slow the spread and to prevent emergency services and hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In 2020 they were also used as a delaying tactic, a way to reduce deaths and serious illness whilst we were waiting for a vaccine to be developed.

The only way to permanently limit Covid spread is to either take the vaccine or catch the virus. And for a solution to be (effectively) permanent, this needs to happen on a global scale.

First, thanks for conceding that you're not an expert. Neither am I. Neither are most others in this forum. But not everyone admits that. The basis of my point above is that a variant is simply a copying error. The more instances of copying there are, the more variants will be produced. The more of a virus there is in circulation, the more variants will arise. Some worse, some not so bad, some not viable at all.


They were around for a long time before they were identified. And there are plenty of variants of common coronaviruses... it's just that they're not a concern if not deadly. A variant is simply a copying error. The reason there are so many viable variants of Covid-19 is that there is a lot of the virus in circulation.


I will not deny that vaccines exert selection pressure on a virus. But this isn't as important a factor as the amount of virus in circulation. If vaccines reduce the amount of virus by providing immunity and reducing spread (which they do), then this vastly outweighs any selection pressure they exert. Consider antibiotic resistance in the case of bacteria... it makes sense not to administer antibiotics for trivial reasons, but no-one is suggesting that we stop using antibiotics entirely. Besides which, even if vaccines did exert a considerable selection pressure, it's a two-horse race... vaccines are modified to combat new variants of concern, as with the annual flu shot.


There is no strong natural immunity. This is a novel coronavirus; it has not been encountered before. There is no pre-existing immunity. The two routes through which an individual can contribute to herd immunity are a) take the vaccine, or b) catch the virus. There's no third route.


I agree that in our country the Tories are interested in exploiting the population for their own gain. But the system has been set up this way and has been working fine for them for a long time now. They don't need to wreck a system that is already rigged hugely in their favour. And population control is irrelevant, it controls itself in time, the five stage demographic transition model is well understood.

It was a temporary arrangement, specifically to cover the US Open. He didn't want to continue after that point in any case.



Well, the draw is out now. Raducanu as a seed has a bye in the first round. Second round she faces an unseeded opponent, either Osorio Serrano or Sasnovich... and then, if she wins... potentially Halep in the third round, which is obviously a difficult proposition.

The reason that we still have restrictions is that the virus is still circulating, with a high R-value. And the main reason for this is that we haven't quite achieved herd immunity, because not enough people have taken the vaccine. It is anti-vaxxers who are causing the restrictions, which is strange as they are the ones responsible.

Look at the data.

It will be interesting to see how she copes. As I am from the UK, I hope she continues to win . Certainly there is a weight of expectation on her now, but I believe she is seeded (despite being a wildcard), which should in theory give her an easy-ish match to start with to settle any nerves.

Coronaviruses were first identified around that time, but of course have been around for many thousands (if not millions) of years.
They are a group of viruses, hence the plural.
They differ in effect, in transmissibility and in deadliness. A 'common cold' coronavirus is different to MERS - which would you rather catch?

Covid 19 kills people, and is highly transmissible. It is a novel virus, so there is no pre-existing immunity... which is why the pandemic has had such an appalling effect.


As for how the human race has survived for so long before vaccines were invented, the answer is that many people haven't. Modern medicine has saved countless lives.
We might also consider that with air travel and increasing human mobility in general, as well as increasing human pressure on the natural environment, a global pandemic is much more likely nowadays - in the past, Covid-19 might have remained contained to China.

Astrophysics is not a religion. Science is not a religion.
Religions are based on having faith that a thing is true, despite there being no evidence.
Science consists of facts. If someone has a theory, they can test it scientifically to determine whether or not it is true. If it is true, it becomes part of our scientific understanding. If it is false, this can lead us to new avenues of enquiry.
Science is a search for truth, by means of testing falsifiable propositions.
Religion has no evidence, it simply says "This is true."


If someone says that the moon is made of cheese, it is not worth discussing.

The number of variants that arise is proportional to the amount of the virus in circulation. Vaccination reduces the number of variants.


There is no medical reason to not wear a mask. By refusing to wear a mask, you contribute to the spread of the virus. By refusing also to have a vaccine, you contribute to the spread of the virus. You are actively encouraging the rise of new variants by increasing the chances of catching the virus and then infecting other people. By refusing to take the vaccine you are also working to prevent herd immunity, and so increasing the chances of this becoming endemic (although this now seems an inevitability in any case).


I agree in part with the government (certainly in the UK) being interested primarily (I might even say exclusively) in the transfer of wealth from ordinary people to themselves and their Eton cronies. But to do this, they need the economy fully open and working. They don't want businesses closed and lockdowns in place, they want the taps fully open again, and the old tried and trusted system fully restored.