Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1.  @Charlieband  "Shares and voting rights." That's quite clear, and up to a point valid, too. Thanks for rephrasing. But I don't know if the UK's influence on Europe has been in sufficient proportion to Europe's influence on the UK. If you're the tail and you can wag the dog, stick with it. If you're just a tail on the dog, maybe you should go off and be your own dog. To tell the difference one would have had to pay close attention for a long time, and I haven't, for I don't even live there. I also like your pointing out the limitations of democracy. Pretending it's perfect is dangerous. One must search for its weaknesses, identify them, accept them, and think hard about them. Then one is ready to do something about them. The whole process takes the brittleness out of it. Suppleness lasts. Thanks again for your interesting reply. Merry Xmas to you, too.
    1
  2. I've come across responses to the same question before and the authorities' response has been "no", based on the idea that the virus particles cannot survive outside a host long enough to complete the journey from China to your mucous membranes. The particles usually die in well under a day and the maximum I've heard is nine days. So it makes sense. How fast can a ship cross a wide ocean at 25 knots? Then there's time on a train or truck, more in a warehouse, and then some on the store shelf. A lot of seafood moves by air, however. Does any of it come from China? I bet some does.
    1
  3. It's hard to believe so many people are as panicked, furious, distrustful, hysterically bitter, and paranoid as these comments would suggest they are. It's got to be mental illness and paid trolling. L'Enfer, c'est les autres.
    1
  4.  @youtubetruthteller6880  I thought your kind considered accent mocking racist. And a form of bullying.
    1
  5.  Karrie Dee  "Yoo no makey much senis" is not accent mocking? How do you figure?
    1
  6.  @shumoon1  They sleep under them.
    1
  7. Tell me this, Professor Pascal: How can an illness which makes over 80% of those it infects only mildly ill cause the death of 50% of its victims? You should also realize that heads of health agencies and ministries are smart enough to listen to statisticians. Heads of government, in turn, are smart enough to listen to heads of health agencies and ministries. Good try, troll. All the specific dates and percentages were a nice touch. Busy night?
    1
  8.  @bisbeejim  First, why are you called bisbeejim (i.e. Jim Busby)? That's an extremely anglosphere name for someone who's not an native speaker of English.
    1
  9.  @bisbeejim  Second, you do not present any mathematics for me to address.
    1
  10.  @bisbeejim  Third, you address me and still don't present any mathematics.
    1
  11.  @bisbeejim  Fourth, I asked you to explain an absurdity in your numbers and you didn't respond.
    1
  12.  @bisbeejim  Finally, thanks for your concern about my well-being. You're a nice troll.
    1
  13.  @tylerdurden3722  I suppose so.
    1
  14. If a journalist not writing an opinion column reveals by his or her reporting or commentary which party or politicians he or she favours, that journalist is a scoundrel.
    1
  15. Did the Luxembourg PM borrow that suit? 2:50 The jacket collar floats centimetres away from his neck, making him look like a man coming apart. Odd.
    1
  16. For guarding your pantry a few months from now when your heavily-armed neighbours notice you don't look as skinny as they are.
    1
  17. They should get married, that pretty pair. A punishment that would fit the crime.
    1
  18. Here's Channel 4 News doing everything they can to affect the election results, and from a survey of the comments it appears they're very much pleasing thoroughgoing Labour and other opposition partisans, as well as Anglophobes presumably worldwide. Engineering political outcomes to their taste is among their core de facto missions, as the least critical eye can discern on any given day.
    1
  19. Just a nervous cough, I think coming from a front seat on the right.
    1
  20.  @ChewieOnTwoWheels  "...criticized it behind their back ..." And in front as well. He's made no secret of his disapproval.
    1
  21.  @ChewieOnTwoWheels  I meant to reply lightly and banteringly, taking mock exception to what some would find an unmannerly question. The point was to throw in spelling that would confound the question. Sorry if I gave offence.
    1
  22. Interest in boys might strike others as creepy. Find a political point to make will you please.
    1
  23.  @tjitse3916  You brought 'creepy' into it. Political criticism is not only fine, but a necessity. But leave the kid out of it, or live with the personal criticism, careless wound for careless wound. No doubt we can agree or disagree more cheerfully on some other matter sometime. All the best.
    1
  24.  @tjitse3916  Ok, a little edit would have helped for clarity: "Political criticism is not only fine, but a necessity. But keep it strictly political and leave the kid out of it, or..."
    1
  25.  @KnIf0rTITAN   Peter Hitchens called the EU "the continuation of Germany by other means." Paste that phrase into the search bar above if you like. It's a one-hour video if I remember right.
    1
  26. What do you mean 'joined'? Merged into one country? Having a laugh?
    1
  27.  @Prodigalfur  I'll admit I've daydreamt about an Anglosphere alliance much stronger than the informal one that exists and includes the Five Eyes agreement. I've wondered whether some crisis could force it upon us, and besides a war doing so temporarily, it seems far-fetched. Vanishingly few people would want it unless it massively bolstered security during wartime or against a serious threat of outbreak of world war. Even then, it wouldn't be a merging into a single state, surely. If that's really what you're asking me to mentally entertain, I must say I find it nothing short of an absurdity. A union of the US and UK is unimaginable in the present world. Predicting the future is hard but it seems safe to say no such union will occur in our lifetime---at least. What could possibly bring it about? I wonder what makes you even think of it for a second. Are you a youngster? If so, that's quite all right; unrestricted fantasy is one way, perhaps essential, to build up one's mind. All the best.
    1
  28. Make no mistake, few Trump supporters would care to consult the BBC on anything.
    1
  29. 12:55 Just look at that big vulgar gaud around Swinson's neck. What person worth listening to would choose such a distracting thing? Jon Snow will be on the hunt for a matching necktie.
    1
  30. And I thought maybe they'd be a bit better on a medical story. Now I realize they'd find a way to pillory the government on a story about a neighbouring galaxy.
    1
  31. Not that the government is necessarily doing a perfect job. Perhaps they're not. I'm in the process of finding out enough to form an opinion, but alas Channel 4 will not be much help.
    1
  32. It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months. And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy. Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for, say, half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them. Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives and also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it. All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly (whichever anglosphere nation we inhabit) not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience. And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a sudden massive transfer of political and economic power to China? The national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and will also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit (or cause) to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving a single one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
    1
  33. It strikes me that the goal of flattening the curve is probably at odds with avoiding the impoverishment of us all, perhaps for no payoff whatever in lives saved. Lives may be at first be saved by slowing an otherwise uncontrolled spread, but slowing the spread roughly means shutting down the country until most people are vaccinated or have caught the virus and recovered. Pausing the economy for a full year or longer would likely be a disaster in many ways worse than letting the disease run its course whilst the sick and the old are safely hunkered down for several months. And drawing out the spread over time is not guaranteed to save a great many lives anyway, as hospitals may be overwhelmed even by a relative trickle of patients: it's clear that they can't handle an influx of the sick amounting to 5% of the population, but what makes anyone think they could handle even 1%? Hospitals will no doubt rise to the occasion in astonishing ways, but they operate within realistic limits against which there is ultimately no remedy. Thus the best way to save the most vulnerable might be to focus on isolating them in the most thoroughgoing manner possible, a task more achievable if people are working at their jobs and circulating freely, maintaining the normal functioning of things needed to support such an effort. It would also free up things like masks and medicines for those who need them most, including medical workers. To isolate those most at risk for half a year is not only much easier on them and all of us than doing so for twelve months or more, and cheaper---it also gives the virus much less time to get through to them. Imagine on the one hand emerging from the summer with herd immunity achieved at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and with a quick economic and social recovery at hand, versus having the disease hanging over us all for a year or longer whilst it slowly but inexorably picks off the vulnerable one by one, at the cost of a similar (or greater) number of lives---and also an economic and financial hole so deep that it takes several years or a decade to climb out of it. All the while we would swing back and forth agonizingly between tantalizing reprieve and resurgent outbreaks which continue through 2021. Quality of life and standards of living, obviously, but also the health of the people in all other respects would be sure to be seriously impacted. Do we know whether society could hang together throughout all that? We are most certainly not the same people who withstood the Second World War with such stoic resilience. And what if the net effect of an unnecessarily protracted struggle against the disease is a prompt, massive transfer of political and economic power to China? The UK national science advisor may have been right to float the herd immunity idea. The country which gets through this soonest will enjoy an enormous feeling of gladness and also be the envy of the world. Possibly it could mean considering how many lives we permit to be ruined in favour of the uncertain chance of saving one. Possibly it could mean sacrificing a certain number of younger lives for a vastly greater number of older ones. As Orwell said, "It is disagreeable to weigh human lives like groceries", but in the worst circumstances that may be precisely what is wisest.
    1
  34.  @Wichnam  You sound just like him!
    1
  35. Odd as it seems, children are the least affected. This has been easy to establish, requiring only simple observation and counting. That's why the emphasis is on the elderly. Cheers.
    1
  36.  @victoria.matthews  Yes it seems odd on the face of it. Search "Sam Harris coronavirus" here on this site for his podcast interview of a leading expert who hypothesizes that an over-strong immune response in adults may be causing deaths among them. Cheers.
    1
  37. No, not stupid. Not as bright as Dr. Peterson, but not stupid. Her problem is being deformed of mind and personality. Cheers.
    1
  38. Ok, can I have the vaccine, please? Oh, that's right, it's going to take another year. You had me going!
    1
  39. @Gideon N  "... USA came in to wipe the floor with the Krauts..." Don't flatter them like that, will you? Russia did the heavy lifting. But I'm congenial to your other points.
    1
  40.  @MrTOMXM  Yes, I would. Especially if the interviewer had a history of posing asinine and inexplicably hostile questions. Speaking of inexplicably hostile questions, you've just asked one yourself. You've no no evidence on which to base an implicit accusation of sexism. Check your biases and try to contain eruptions of party feeling.
    1
  41.  @sebastianelytron8450   You wrote "...leader of a deranged cult of angry, aggressive, "tough-guy" morons and is a danger to society if he's not stopped." Your remarks drip with hatred of men. Congratulations, this shows you've absorbed the culture of hatred of men quite efficiently. You're deranged, angry, aggressive, a danger to society, and must be stopped. I stop short of calling you a moron. I wouldn't even if you were one. Cheers.
    1
  42. The professor suggests other matters will have a much greater impact on Britain's future. Probably. But the Brexit lever is the one Britain alone can pull. The others are in the hands of the US, China, India, other Asian nations, etc. That puts Britain's intense concern over Brexit safely above worry that it's a sick obsession. But that's what Gibbon clearly wanted him to say.
    1
  43. Yes, that projection is ridiculous. It also makes Greenland appear larger than Brazil. Time it were ditched.
    1
  44. I think it's safe to say she's permanently lost her appetite for lobster.
    1
  45. Just guessing, but maybe around 160 vs 130. But it's on a log-type scale, so he probably has around twice her processing power. Something like that, much of it accounted for by better software, meaning thinking strategies and tactics, rather than mere speed and memory (roughly speaking, hardware).
    1
  46. @Andrzej M Ok, yeah, 160 is way higher and I don't know why I said that. Wanted to err on the side of generosity I suppose. As for 130, no, that's not so high as you say, I don't think. Roughly 97th percentile, so only faster than around 29 out of 30 people. Again maybe a bit generous. Call the difference 30 points, which is still a country mile. Cheers.
    1
  47. They're being told it'll save their lives, and old people are quite sensible. You didn't know that?
    1
  48. So does much else.
    1
  49. Who knows? Quarantining and lockdowns work. Chinese people are ordinarily incredibly obedient anyway, and that probably goes double in the present circumstances. They're under the dual threat of the government and a deadly illness.
    1
  50.  @grimmer2005  Well, when this blows over, Chinese international travel on a huge scale will probably resume. In all likelihood, we'll hear the stories then if there are any. I have a hard time believing the CPC can permanently keep a lid on major skullduggery given how much freer the (Han) Chinese have become. We know all about their Uighur camps, for example. Cheers.
    1