I wasn't aware that anyone had said it was more lethal. Everything I've read suggests that it is a variant of concern because of the types of mutations involved, and the fact that case numbers appear to be escalating rapidly. Early anecdotal evidence suggests that transmissibility might be higher, but symptoms may be milder. But we certainly don't know for sure yet. Similarly there is no evidence yet, as far as I'm aware, that it can evade the vaccines. But it's a variant that might potentially be troublesome, and so it's being investigated.

Having said that, I do stay aware from the more hysterical new sources, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the usual outlets were screaming about the end of the world, just to generate some interest.

I'm fairly confident that Djokovic won't play in Australia. It would seem entirely unfitting to his character to take the vaccine, even if it means missing the chance of slam #21.

There's also been an interview with his father today, that seems to back this position:

That's the Beta variant, not Omicron.
They're allowed more than one variant per country, you know. FFS.

It's probably more that rich people are used to getting away with whatever they like, tax evasion is most common, but any other illegal activity, too. (Isn't that right, Prince Andrew?)
So they view the prospect of a trial by jury to be unfair... because impartial is unfair, as it removes their inbuilt immunity.

I think it's not so much that the jury would be biased against the rich, the objection is more that they aren't biased towards the rich.

Viruses evolve, like anything else. The more cases of Covid there are, the more new variants will emerge. Some may have mutations that mean the current generation of vaccines don't work quite so well. The main issue is that there are still large clusters of unvaccinated people, partly the anti-vaxxer crowd in developed nations, but more importantly in the global south, where vaccines are difficult to come by and vaccination levels very low. This is why there has been a push from some people in developed nations to share the vaccines more equitably with poorer nations. The developed nations have largely failed to do this, which means Covid continues to circulate at high levels in poorer nations, which in turn means the virus has more chance to mutate into viable new variants. It's no coincidence that the new Omicron variant arose in unvaccinated South Africa.

The encouraging news is that the hardest work has already been done - the creation of the initial vaccines. It will be relatively quick to modify these to counter Omicron, if necessary. But so long as there are large unvaccinated areas, we can expect new variants to arise quite frequently.



I've met certain people before who, when you attempt to engage them in a political discussion, respond in stock words, phrases and cliches. You realise that they are not thinking, but simply regurgitating some breathless tabloid/clickbait headline they've read somewhere. The best course of action when encountering these people is to simply move on; you're unlikely to be able to cause them to question their own opinions, because they don't actually have their own opinions. Nevertheless, their repeated use of certain keywords is a useful flag, by which they can be identified.

There's no need to explain; I understand the concept of selection pressures perfectly well. And it is of course entirely reasonable to assume that a vaccine might apply some selection pressure, this is not in dispute.

But you are demonstrating some quite profound cognitive dissonance. You say that the vaccines don't work, and they also apply selection pressure to the virus. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. If the vaccine doesn't work, then there is no need for the virus to mutate to get around its defences. A vaccine will only apply selection pressure if it is effective. In which case, what's your argument? That vaccines are great, but not 100% effective, therefore we shouldn't use them?  

The other thing it seems you are implying - but correct me if I'm wrong - is that the Covid vaccines are applying selection pressure to cause the virus to mutate, but viral mutation in people who haven't had the vaccine either doesn't occur, or else does occur but is insignificant and not of concern. This conclusion is illogical, and goes against the evidence. Particularly when we consider that the worst variant we have seen so far, Delta, arose prior to the vaccine programmes starting.

He's come out with some stupid things about vaccines, yes, but this is not one of them. Even one of your far-right Christian nut-job websites concedes as much:
https://rairfoundation.com/alert-luc-montagnier-did-not-say-vaccine-would-kill-people-in-two-years-heres-what-he-did-say-video/

He didn't say "the more you vaccinate the more variants you will have", but I'll agree that he has some weird and utterly unfounded ideas that the current variants are related to the vaccine, despite the inconvenient fact that they arose prior to the start of the vaccination programme... oops!

He's also a believer in homeopathy, which should tell you all that you need to know. Maybe he was a competent scientist once, but things may have changed somewhat since then. Perhaps he should take Trump's famous dementia test?

Obviously football depends a lot on confidence, but it's still strange to see it take effect like this, as it does almost every time a team gets a new manager.

Villa without Grealish are a poor team, the last few games under Smith they were almost guaranteed to lose, almost no point in even turning up... but bring in a manager, who puts the same players out, and suddenly they're invincible and storming up the table.

It seems unlikely. If Hamilton wins with Verstappen second, I'd imagine Red Bull would do everything they could to ensure Perez takes the fastest lap point from Hamilton. They wouldn't even mind if Bottas took it, anyone, so long as Max had that crucial 1 point advantage going into the final race, to make him champion should it end in a double DNF.




With most other drivers, I'd agree, but I think Max has handled the pressure and the novelty of the situation extremely well. I might question the legality and motivation for some of his driving at times, but it's undeniable that in his first title challenge he has behaved as if there is no pressure at all, where other drivers might have buckled (as Vettel did when Ferrari last had a competitive car).



I'm hoping it goes to the final race, and doesn't end in an "accidental" double DNF.

It's very difficult trying to hold a rational conversation with people who can't understand (or else understand but refuse to accept) the concept of evolution. Viruses mutate randomly, and are subjected to selection pressures, as is everything else. This should not be difficult to comprehend. Are you fundamentalist Christians? Is that the problem? That might explain your objection to basic facts and evidence.

South Africa has a vaccination rate of 24%. The question of whether this is high or low relative to other African nations is utterly irrelevant. It is low in absolute terms, which is all that matters here.





Nope, he didn't say that. You are either mistaken or lying. Let's assume mistaken.

Are you talking about the new B.1.1.529 variant? This isn't true at all. It's coming out of southern Africa, which has very low vaccination levels. It was always anticipated that the failure of the developed nations to share the vaccines would create problems, and so it has. The global south is largely unvaccinated, and is a perfect breeding ground for new variants, some of which may of course turn out to be vaccine-resistant.

The more of a virus there is in circulation, the more variants will arise. This is quite basic maths. The best way to reduce the amount of virus in circulation is to take the vaccine.

I didn't see it, but the reports do say that Sinner played extremely well. I don't know with Isner, I suppose so much of his game is based on the strong serve and winning all his own service games, if that serve starts to misfire, or he faces someone who is great at returning, then he can struggle. Isner actually ranks top on percentage of service games won this year, a ludicrous 92%... so maybe he did just start to misfire a bit.

Yes, barring anything unpredictable, it's a Hamilton win. Even if Max beats him off the line, Hamilton should have the raw pace to overtake him whenever it is safest/most convenient.

But the thing is, F1 certainly has unpredictable events quite frequently, crashes, grid penalties, bad pit stops, punctures, a safety car at the wrong moment... I think it is more the chance of something unpredictable happening that narrows the odds between the two drivers, because on the face of it (without accounting for anything unpredictable) Hamilton should be a massive favourite, much more than the odds suggest.

It's such a weird situation with Newcastle. It's notoriously difficult to get good players in the mid-season window. They are bottom of the table, with some of the richest, most ambitious owners around. It's not inconceivable at all that they will get relegated. And it doesn't matter how much money you have, if you're not playing in the top division, you can't get top players.

Basically every player currently at the club knows that if the owners had their way, they would all be kicked out and replaced with upgrades. This is not good for morale, in a team where it's already rock-bottom. I can easily see them remaining in their current position come the end of the season.

Is that him saying he'll get vaccinated though, or just the Australian Open people desperately trying to convince him to do it, because they want him to play there?
TBH given his personality and the way he is often so outspoken on these things, I would actually be quite surprised if he got the vaccine. Of course he will have a good chance of winning the Australian Open if he competes there, and achieving the record, but it's not like he won't be the favourite at every other slam as well.

They do it metaphorically all the time, I don't think it's that much of a change to imagine them doing so for real. If it happened in this country, the worst that would happen to them is that they'd get sacked, and then quietly reappointed to a similar job a couple of months later, when the stink had died down*.






*_{couple of months is an estimate, based on diet and wind conditions**.}

**_{wind conditions in a meteorological sense, although in the other sense it would also be a complicating factor.}

I actually don't think they'll go wheel-to-wheel, Hamilton will back out.

The reason I think this is a crash where they both DNF would be disastrous for Hamilton... he'd be 8 points behind with one race left, and Max would then just need to finish second in the final race to win the championship.
We know this is a track that should favour Mercedes, and Hamilton has his super-speed Brazil engine back. I would imagine if they get close, he'll let Max take the position, confident in the knowledge that he can overtake later in a safer, less crowded spot. We're too late in the season now for them to take chances. As for Max, I don't know... a crash and a double DNF would benefit him, but not if he's seen as the instigator and gets a points deduction.

Climate change will force the focus onto certain industries. Renewable energy is obviously one, and I do agree with your point about agriculture, but mainly in the form of genetic engineering of crops as we try to feed a large population in ever-worsening conditions. I do think there will be wars over water sources... there is already trouble around the Nile.

Some doctors lie, but this is because 'doctors' is a subset of 'people'.
Some people lie. I don't think there is a higher prevalence amongst doctors... and in general, given their profession, you might expect a doctor to be more honest than someone who works in, say, advertising or sales (or politics).