Italy are defensive, yes.
England normally are very attacking. However that has hurt them in the past, and so this tournament they are being a lot more cautious, as we saw for example with their formation against Germany.

I expect both sides to play defensively in the final... unfortunately that is generally the way in finals anyway, regardless of who is playing.

Yes, it can. Life expectancy as a statistical measure is an average. It is perfectly normal for an individual data point to differ from the average across a dataset.
If you are saying that someone who is already 80 cannot die at age 73, then that's quite true, but it has nothing to do with statistical average life expectancy.

I don't know. I'm not convinced Mercedes would have any need to set that up this far in advance, given that Russell is one of their young drivers anyway... and it's not like them to do such a thing.

Assuming Bottas still has a chance of staying with Mercedes, this is certainly a crucial season. Verstappen looks likely to win the drivers' title... but if Mercedes can finish 2 and 3 each race, they still have a decent chance of getting the constructors' title, and salvaging something. But for this they need their second driver to be consistently scoring high points, and outscoring the second Red Bull driver.

Have you seen the own goal, though? It's not like he belted it in from the edge of the area, or it took a huge deflection that wrong-footed the keeper. It's extremely harsh to call it carelessness. Basically the ball was coming to Sterling, a couple of yards out in front of an empty net. The defender could either hit it in himself, or let Sterling do it. It would have been a miracle if he'd managed to stop the ball going in.


Well, the answer is given in the post below yours:


Kane's penalty was weak, and he was certainly lucky that the rebound came to him. Similarly they were lucky to be awarded the penalty. But...
England were unlucky:
1. not to get a penalty earlier,
2. to concede the foul for Denmark's free-kick goal,
3. when Sterling's shot from point-blank range hit Schmeichel's body,
4. the numerous times the ball pinged about in the Denmark area and didn't fall to an English player.

Both teams had chances, but who, really, on the balance of play, had the better chances and was the better team? England deserved to go through.

As for the final though, Italy are better than England and have to be favourites.

Yes, that's what happened here in the UK, too. Utterly appalling decision-making.

It's not that clear-cut, though. The question of whether or not someone is vulnerable doesn't have a yes/no answer, there are obviously degrees of vulnerability, which is also dependent on factors such as viral load.
If governments didn't force people to stay at home, for example office-workers, if they made it voluntary... then there would be huge pressure from companies to force people in to work, regardless of level of vulnerability, or with some arbitrary age cut-off.
The best answer is the answer with the lowest death toll, which is implement periodic lock-downs of varying severity depending on current case numbers, until the level of vaccination is sufficient to confer effective herd immunity. And then fight any emerging variants with annual booster shots.
A government has to make a trade-off between economic damage and death toll. If you are going to impinge on people's freedoms, then better to impinge on their freedom to go to the shops than on their freedom to be alive. One is temporary, the other is permanent.

In this tournament they have been very reluctant with the VAR to overturn the referee's initial decision. But I think the rule is they can only overturn it if the referee has made an obvious error. In this case it wasn't an obvious error. There was definitely a touch from the first defender, and then a second foul from the second defender. Sometimes they are given, sometimes not.

But in this instance, what would have happened if the referee hadn't given the penalty? The first half of extra time was relentless England pressure, with Denmark trying desperately to keep the score at 1-1. In the second half of extra time, Denmark lost a man and had no more subs to bring on. I think the chances are that with no penalty England would have continued to attack and scored the second.

I think overall, on the balance of play, and on chances created, England deserved the win.

But I do think Italy will likely prove too strong for them in the final. England's best chance there is using the speed of their attackers... but they'll likely start with a defensive line-up as they did against Germany.

I'd have to disagree with that. England almost scored just one minute before the goal, with Sterling's shot from point-blank range saved by Schmeichel. As for the own goal, the defender had two choices, own goal or let Sterling score. And if England hadn't equalised then, they'd have continued to attack with more and more pressure.

The crucial thing for me, as the game wore on, was that England had greater strength in depth. Denmark used most of their subs early, and England still had high quality players with fresh legs to bring on later. The end of normal time, and all of extra-time until England scored their second was just relentless one-way pressure. The only question was whether Denmark could survive long enough to take it to a penalty shootout.

As for the penalty decision, yes, it was quite soft... but England had a much clearer penalty from the foul on Kane turned down earlier in the match.

Ah, thanks. So it can't be that symbol, then. I suppose that also rules out anything else that didn't exist in 1961, for example QAnon.

I don't think so. I hope not.

No, I'm not illiterate, but thanks for your concern. For future reference, you might want to look for certain flags, such as not understanding apostrophes and question marks.

I assumed you meant 10s, because the image at 11s is simply that of a power button. Given the monochrome footage, I assume you're a staunch advocate of the BLM movement. Good for you.

Australia, as an island nation that is quite geographically isolated, is an easier place than most for border controls to be an effective barrier to CV19. This is a reason that case numbers are low. We also need to consider that vaccination in Australia is low as well... which means they're more vulnerable if an outbreak should occur. Hence the emphasis on border controls, and a reluctance to let in a large number of foreigners for the GP, especially as a lot of the teams have UK personnel, and UK case numbers are currently high. Whilst its true that most UK personnel will be vaccinated, that doesn't prevent you from catching and passing on the virus, it just reduces the chance... for Australia that's presumably still an unacceptable risk.

This? No idea. At a quick glance it might be confused for the Nazi flag, but if you pause and take a longer look, then it's clearly not.

It's not just the rate of death, it's the total number of cases. Even if death rate is low as a proportion of cases, if there are a lot of cases — as in a global pandemic — then there are a lot of deaths.
The current total deaths from CV19 is 4 million, globally.
And even if you are young and perfectly healthy, you should have some empathy for others. If you catch the virus and experience only mild symptoms, you can easily pass it on to someone more vulnerable, and kill them.


This is baseless nonsense. The trends in the data following vaccination are perfectly clear. Consider the second and third waves in the UK.
Second wave is before the vaccination programme started. Third wave is now, with fairly high vaccination levels.


source

I'd agree that Italy should be favourites, but Spain certainly have a decent chance. It's by no means clear-cut. Yes, Italy haven't lost since 2018, but a lot of the bigger nations don't lose very often - because they play smaller nations a lot in qualifying matches. Spain won't be a pushover, and we also have to remember that Italy are now missing Spinazzola, too.

I'd favour Italy, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it.

I finally understand what you're aiming for here. You're trying to prove that the crime rate of black Americans is extremely low, aren't you?
You're trying to post every instance of a crime committed by a black American.
Recent posts in this thread suggest 1 crime per 7 days committed by a black American.
There are approx 42 million black Americans.
Therefore 1/(7*42000000) = 0.000000003 crimes per black American per day.

You're right - that is certainly extremely low.

$$$. That's the motivation for any business decision.


Do you mean the chlorinated chicken etc, or the vegetarian imitation meat?
If the former, then again this is simple $$$, and permitted due to the fact that post-Brexit the government are free(r) to remove those pesky foods standards that are a blocker to businesses.
If the latter, then no-one is telling us to eat it. I mean, it's becoming fashionable, but that's all. There's the green angle, but I thought the main push was to get us to eat locusts etc as a cheap source of nutrients?

He's doing his best to hide it, but the man on the left does look somewhat concerned that he's about to receive the suppository on the right. I think he's less bothered at the moment about the question of whether or not Earth allows him back.

The weirdest thing for me is not your "creative" mathematics, but the fact that you are saying that Harvard and VAERS are reputable sources of data.
Whenever I've posted studies and data from universities and official bodies before, you've refused to accept it, and linked out to some YouTube lunatic instead.
But now you're saying that Harvard and VAERS are, in this instance at least, to be trusted. The inference here has to be that you suddenly trust them because you think they back up your pre-conceived conclusions. The fact that they don't is neither here nor there, really.

It's refreshing to see someone who believes some of these theories but demands evidence, and crucially reproducible evidence.
Some people appear to believe all of it, unquestioningly... which I think makes their opinions less valuable.

The magnets thing is so absurd, that it's difficult to write a post debunking it without laughing.
You do realise just how small a quantity of vaccine is injected into your body, right? I mean, even if the vaccine was pure iron, the amount that gets injected wouldn't be enough to make a magnet stick to you.
This is flat-earth-grade lunacy.

The craziest thing about this thread is that we can have so many posts, 762 now, and there are still people who genuinely believe, despite such overwhelming evidence, that this question is not settled... so much data from so many different sources around the world, independent of one another.

If it's a conspiracy then it's managed to unite enemies such as the US, Russia, China, North Korea... and still somehow keep it a secret from the general public around the world. Is that really credible?