It's not hindsight, it was — or should have been — absolutely obvious everyone early last year what would happen, as soon as it started spreading beyond China. Here in the UK, we saw the pandemic wreaking havoc in Italy, and our government did nothing. They weren't willing to accept any degree of economic damage that might ensue from border controls* or that might prove unpopular and hurt them in the opinion polls. Instead they closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. Unfortunately wishful thinking doesn't work against reality.

*see also, as a neat counterpoint, Brexit.

It's certainly extremely rare, but I wouldn't say no-one. Jeff Bezos made $75bn in 2020, including $13bn in one day.
But of course, as with all billionaires, this isn't money that goes into his bank account. In general the wealth fluctuates considerably, and is based on the company's share price.

I do agree with your statement in general, it's very rare... just thought I should say there are a few people who make that kind of money, even if largely from share price changes. I'd imagine Elon Musk is similar.

I'd probably argue that the human right to go out and do some shopping is less important than the human right to be alive... in which case it makes sense to prevent people visiting shops if that reduces the spread of a pandemic, and saves lives.

Yes, for something like the Covid vaccine where vastly more humans are save than the number of mice tested then it's an easy decision. But sometimes, for other things, it's difficult to determine a threshold of acceptability using numbers. As a thought experiment to determine what is acceptable (because obviously in practice the numbers wouldn't be so high) is it right to kill 1 million mice to save 1 human? Or all mice in existence for 1 human? Then we move away from life-saving drugs to everyday medicines that are useful but not life-savers. Is it okay to kill 1,000 mice to test a new headache pill that is perhaps a  slight improvement on what's already available on the market? Then eventually we move onto animal testing for cosmetics... and presumably we passed the threshold somewhere, because many people would argue you shouldn't kill say 10,000 mice to test a new lipstick. It can be a grey area.

It's a big chance missed for Fulham. I was fairly confident they could escape the drop, but games are running out now. And worse for them is that Newcastle, who were dropping like a stone, are now starting to pick up a few draws and a bit of an undefeated run.

Fulham still have a chance, but they're starting to run out of time.

I'm sure the random approach has its merits, but one technique that I sometimes use if I have a very strong hand is bet very conservatively initially, and then later on, say on the turn or the river we get a card that is no value to anyone, I suddenly bet big. More often than not this makes people think you are bluffing. The key I think with any strategy is to use it sparingly. Don't play to a pattern, because that becomes easy to read.

Exactly. It was evident to everyone, based on what happened in China and how it started to spread to Europe that it was only a matter of time before it hit the UK. The trouble is that the government - and governments in most countries, in general - is short-termist and reactive rather than proactive. They address a thing that is a problem now, whereas for a thing that will evidently become a problem later, they don't take steps to prevent it, they wait until it is a problem, and address it then. Their initial policy of keeping everything open was because they didn't want to incur any economic damage from closing the borders. Turns out, as should be obvious to anyone, that by not closing the borders you invite the virus in, and then have to implement stricter containment measures later, which causes far more economic damage than if they'd taken a small initial preventative step. Oh, and it would have prevented vast numbers of deaths, too... but that, for the government, is an irrelevance so long as it doesn't hurt them in the pocket or in the polls.

If it's a level of snowfall that far exceeds normal, then yes, there's a decent chance that human-caused climate change is a contributing factor.

The world as a whole getting warmer does not mean that every part of the world will be warmer all the time. The climate will be warmer on average, across the world and across years or decades. If you think about what is happening, and the underlying physics, you will understand that warmer air holds more moisture. This leads of course to more frequent unusual and severe rain/snow events.

You'd think I'd get sick of posting facts and links to data all the time... but no, I'm still going. The charts below show changing ocean water vapour levels over recent years. Prize* if you can spot the trend.


http://www.remss.com/announcement/long-term-record-of-water-vapor-over-the-oceans/



*Note: Prizes may or may not exist. Unlike human-caused climate change, which is a real thing.

You keep repeating this thing about comorbidities. You accept the number of deaths, but challenge the reason for death.
And then I say: okay, if you don't believe the reason for death, then look at total number of deaths...

... and the response to this is something along the lines of


... so you have no problem with the figures for total number of deaths until it's pointed out that the facts undermine your argument, at which point suddenly total number is apparently something that needs to be challenged.

---


They are very clear about the data sources, and I linked to them in my later post. This is huge quantities of data from reputable official sources around the world - sources that are independent of one another. I appreciate that the link that you gave was to a proper paper on a proper website... but it's still just one guy's opinion. It's certainly not as absurd as the Satan Soldiers guy in the hat, but still, it lacks weight. It's one paper by one person. He can say 'meta-analysis' all he likes, it's one person's paper and one person's conclusion. Statistics can certainly be presented in many ways. I'm asking why the opinion of one person should outweigh mountains of evidence from massive datasets which, independently of one another, confirm the same trend. The Covid debate is the same as the climate debate. Just because lobbyists from fossil-fuel companies climate-skeptics exist, it doesn't give their evidence-free non-arguments any weight. They need more than to exist, more than to shout 'this is my opinion', they need credible evidence that stands up to scrutiny better than that of the overwhelming majority of experts.

I think the top 4 is settled now, the current top 4 is likely to be the end of season top 4. And 2 of the 3 relegation places are settled, I think, too.
The main questions are
a) Who will take the final relegation spot? Anyone up to Southampton is vulnerable.
b) Will Liverpool qualify for Europe at all? Personally I think their most likely final position in the table will be 8th.

This is certainly true. Some charts are based on vast quantities of official data obtained from numerous different independent sources and professional bodies all around the world, and show a consistent statistical pattern (here are the data sources for the chart I posted).
Other charts and "information" may be obtained from some guy in a fun hat ranting about Satan Soldiers from what looks to be his living room.

I suppose it's up to each of us to determine which data sources are more credible.

I can't state this often enough (and I have stated it many many times over the last year):
If you don't believe that Covid is the reason, then look at deaths for any reason, and compare this to the average number of deaths in a normal year.

Something is killing huge numbers of people, way more than normal. And these deaths happen to occur at the same time as Covid outbreaks.
Go to the website, look at the data.


https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid

None of the options really cover my perspective, so I haven't voted.

I think the creation of a super-intelligent artificial entity at some point in the future is all but inevitable, and there will be nothing we can do to prevent it or to control it.

I say 'at some point' because this could be decades away, or longer. There's a world of difference between brute processing power of whatever degree and a self-aware entity. But we now live in a world of big data, which is perfect food for neural networks. I'm confident that self-awareness will arise at some point, because I believe that all human biological processes can in theory be replicated artificially; I don't believe in any 'soul' or
immaterial essence.

And if such an entity does develop, then how can we control it? How can anyone, with confidence, say that they can control a thing that is faster and more intelligent than themselves?

Whilst I'm sure there will be more WFH after the Covid pandemic subsides, I don't think it will be an abrupt 100% shift. Big companies have obviously seen that WFH is viable, and they can massively reduce the overhead of maintaining expensive physical offices... but many companies I think are not ready for 100% WFH. The near future I think for many large companies with white collar jobs that can be done remotely will be a hybrid model where you still go into the office x days a week, and WFH the rest. This way they can reduce office space and costs without throwing it away entirely. Businesses tend to be cautious. I think physical spaces will retain a foothold, at least for the moment.



I'm in the UK, too. We already have many call centres and outsourced IT jobs in India in order to have cheap English-speaking staff. I imagine this trend will continue, and will promote levelling of opportunities between nations... but there are certainly difficulties with it, one notable example being the time difference. The WFH revolution will of course also help to level opportunities within nations. You'll no longer have to move to London to get a top job... you can WFH, and maybe travel to London once in a while.

Overall I think it's a welcome trend, and should help to reduce inequality of opportunity.

Loss of confidence, that's the root of it.
The standards that Liverpool and Man City have set are so high, that you only need to have a few bad results to put you out of contention for winning the title.
This is what happened with Liverpool. Players start to have less belief in themselves and in their team-mates. They dwell on things, they start to question things... performances that previously were instinctive and natural are now difficult because they are over-thinking everything and are concerned that passes will go wrong, tackles will be mistimed, shots will be off-target, the goalkeeper won't be able to catch the ball, etc.
Yes, some of the responsibility for fixing this lies with the manager and motivating the team and bringing their belief back. But some of the responsibility lies with the players, too.

It's undeniable that the van Dijk injury was a big one for Liverpool, and has affected their performances this season.

However... this is Liverpool. Remember their performances last season? They are not a one-man team. They have a lot of strength in depth, they can put out a reserve 11 that would be able to hold its own in the Premier League.

The loss of van Dijk, and other injuries, can and will certainly affect them... but it's not the main issue. The main issue is that they have completely lost confidence in their own ability as a team. The mental side is vitally important, and Liverpool this season have lost it, whether van Dijk was a trigger or not.

Compare with Villa who lost Grealish - a much smaller team with a single star player. This has affected their results. The same should not be true of Liverpool. With the players they have, they should be perfectly capable, even without van Dijk and others, of maintaining a Champions League spot. It's far more to do with confidence than loss of a player or two.

I agree that the vaccines have been fast-tracked due to necessity; I don't think anyone disputes this fact. Trials have been completed, animal trials and then the standard 3-phase human trials... but it has certainly all been done at lightning speed, yes, in order to get the vaccine out as quickly as possible and reduce the death toll.

Addressing your points:
A. This is baseless speculation. It seems extremely unlikely. Do you have any evidence?
B. ?? What does this have to do with Trump? The pandemic is global. If it was all a plan to depose Trump, why wouldn't "they" have started it (and limited it to) the US, rather than providing China as a scapegoat, and killing huge numbers of people outside the US? Why wouldn't the virus have been set up to originate from a Trump-owned property rather than a market in China?
C. Governments are generally incompetent and have little interest in scientific facts. They'll push whatever "truths" are convenient. Media will hype and exaggerate whatever you put in front of them. If politicians and media reported the unvarnished scientific facts, the world would be a better place.
D. The public need to be made aware of the dangers facing them.
E. No, the pandemic is the pandemic. Fear is a consequence.
F. Not for nothing, for a vaccine that safeguards them against potential death.
G. Who gains? The people who already control everything? Those in charge prefer to maintain the lucrative status quo rather than creating unpredictable chaos.
H. This is baseless speculation. It seems extremely unlikely. Do you have any evidence that supports this as a logical sequence?

Not true. I don't want to have to link to the data again.

My point really is that whatever your opinion on a topic, you'll certainly be able to find someone, somewhere who agrees with it. But the opinion of one doctor is not the same as the opinions of the rest of the scientific establishment. We need data to make a judgement. This is why large studies are better than small studies, why data attained from multiple independent sources are better than are from a single source, why reputable sources and websites with a proven track record are better than a random doctor on YouTube.

It's not fate. Luck plays a part in many games, certainly, but fate does not. It is, as you say, a mechanism that people use to pacify themselves, to move responsibility for the loss away from themselves and onto something else, onto the universe as a whole. Saying that an outcome was due to fate is the same as saying "it's not my fault that I lost"... when it clearly would be your fault if you lost due to your own poor judgement, and if you lost due to bad luck, then you were just unlucky this time and perhaps bet too big given the mathematics. Luck tends to even out over time. Fate plays no part in gambling. An erroneous belief in fate, however, can certainly influence your mental state... as the false idea of a winning or a lucky streak can lead you into bad decisions.

Barca have a better goal difference, so it's more like 3.5 points... if Atletico draw their next two games and Barca win their next two, then Barca are top of the league.
But I do still think Atletico will win it. Everything is still in their hands. They have some tough fixtures in the run-in to the end of the season, but they are top of the table for a reason, and they're good enough to see it out and finish top. All Barca and Real Madrid can do is keep winning, and hope Atletico drop points.