Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Detournement 1,958]

1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said:

Fucking hell mate. All i've done is read an article you told me to read 😂

No you said the planes have no impact on global warming. Which is beyond stupid. 

The contrails article was just proof that they have a day to day immediate impact. I have no doubt that air pollution will reduce as well very quickly.

[Pato 12,721]

1 minute ago, hk blues said:

Scale of calls.  We've been here before. 

which can presumably be addressed with beefier infrastructure, no?

[Granny Danger 16,181]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The SNP have to shoulder a large amount of blame here too. Their lack of preparedness will no doubt up the death toll to a level that could have been avoided. But i agree that primarily the tories underfunding and devaluing of the NHS which has been rampantly cheerleaded by the far right supremacist brexiteer im alright jack types are mostly to blame. Whats happened in Scotland is a mixture of tory intent and SNP lack of preparedness.

The criticism of the Scottish Government would be justified if  Scotland were an independent country and we had full control over revenue raising.  As it is we are dependent on funding decided by Westminster and a tiny amount of discretion out with that.

[WATTOO 3,023]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

That’s already happened.  It would have been impractical and wrong to close them right away, companies were going to take a hit and that had to be reflected.  

However we’re now seeing companies dropping 12% one day then gaining 10% the next; that’s speculation pure and simple.

 

Once the thing is over, then there will be a genuine and realistic assessment of a company’s worth.

It's just the same manipulation and wild swings that we saw back in 2008, don't get me wrong it's great if you've got a few quid, level 2 access and the time to sit day trading the swings, but obviously that's NOTHING to do with "investment" but then again little is in the markets nowadays.

Closing the markets would mean people couldn't access their cash but over an above that most of everyday life is connected to the markets and this would undoubtedly end up doing far more harm than good.

[Bairnardo 29,421]

Boy on my Facebook posted a video of his street where you could hear everyone clapping and cheering. He was clapping as well but it sounded like he was actually fapping out his window.

#fapforthenhs

^^Has Alan Lithgow on Facebook

[Pato 12,721]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

The criticism of the Scottish Government would be justified if  Scotland were an independent country and we had full control over revenue raising.  As it is we are dependent on funding decided by Westminster and a tiny amount of discretion out with that.

cmon man we're talking about basics: gloves. masks. aprons. face shields. These can't be explained away because tories.

[Detournement 1,958]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

The criticism of the Scottish Government would be justified if  Scotland were an independent country and we had full control over revenue raising.  As it is we are dependent on funding decided by Westminster and a tiny amount of discretion out with that.

The Scottish government want us to be an independent country WITHOUT control over revenue raising!

We should be grateful that the RBS rejects who SNP delegates economic policy to never got to implement their idiocy.

 

[Sergeant Wilson 22,805]

I've to build a desk today. I may be some time. Alternatively I might just put the box up on bricks.

[Granny Danger 16,181]

Just now, MixuFixit said:

cmon man we're talking about basics: gloves. masks. aprons. face shields. These can't be explained away because tories.

It’s naive to look at that in isolation (no pun).  The NHS in Scotland is grossly underfunded due to the Tories austerity policy and I imagine there are far more pressing priorities that stockpiling equipment in the ‘unlikely’ event of a serious global pandemic.

[hk blues 1,229]

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

which can presumably be addressed with beefier infrastructure, no?

Already covered - cannot be done overnight or without significant investment. 

Hopefully that squares the circle and you can get back to life in the 6th wealthiest country on earth and me, well to not the 6th wealthiest country on earth! 

[Todd_is_God 2,936]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

No you said the planes have no impact on global warming. Which is beyond stupid.

What I actually said was that if air travel is as bad as it is made out to be, then with the huge reduction in flights (coupled with the likes of China reducing production) over an extended period that I would have expected there to have been some noticeable effect on global temperatures and for Climate Change activists to be making the most of the opportunity they will likely never get again.

Your article shows that they limit the daily range between highs and lows, but no evidence they increase the overall temperature.

It even ends with a theory they may, in fact, offset global warming but that it would need another study.

This now would probably be a good time for that study.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[WATTOO 3,023]

1 minute ago, hk blues said:

Already covered - cannot be done overnight or without significant investment. 

Hopefully that squares the circle and you can get back to life in the 6th wealthiest country on earth and me, well to not the 6th wealthiest country on earth! 

I suppose the question could be along the lines of,

Would you rather live in a Rich country like Britain or a Poor country like Norway ???

[coprolite 4,013]

13 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

That’s already happened.  It would have been impractical and wrong to close them right away, companies were going to take a hit and that had to be reflected.  

However we’re now seeing companies dropping 12% one day then gaining 10% the next; that’s speculation pure and simple.

 

Once the thing is over, then there will be a genuine and realistic assessment of a company’s worth.

The stock market is always about speculation and profiteering. Volatile movements in stocks protect real assets from speculation. 

You chose to gamble in this way and want to change the rules because your bets have gone bad, it's understandable. However, the doctrine of tough titties must apply in this situation. 

[Silverton End 2,950]

@throbber

Please re-instate Alan Bennett as your avatar.

Thank You x

[PAC 13]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What I actually said was that if air travel is as bad as it is made out to be, then with the huge reduction in flights (coupled with the likes of China reducing production) over an extended period that I would have expected there to have been some noticeable effect on global temperatures and for Climate Change activists to be making the most of the opportunity they will likely never get again.

The global mean surface temperature is a 30 year average. You won't see much difference in that.

[Pato 12,721]

Just now, coprolite said:

The stock market is always about speculation and profiteering. Volatile movements in stocks protect real assets from speculation. 

You chose to gamble in this way and want to change the rules because your bets have gone bad, it's understandable. However, the doctrine of tough titties must apply in this situation. 

almost without exception funds that all of us depend upon for pensions etc. are subject to this at the moment. It's not about speculating, it's about it gubbing X years of someone's planned investments now, meaning when they come to retire their investment has had to repeat this growth over X years, meaning they have a crapper pension.

[Detournement 1,958]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What I actually said was that if air travel is as bad as it is made out to be, then with the huge reduction in flights (coupled with the likes of China reducing production) over an extended period that I would have expected there to have been some noticeable effect on global temperatures and for Climate Change activists to be making the most of the opportunity they will likely never get again.

A few months isn't going to outweigh decades of emissions but the likelihood is we will see some impacts. Just not after 5 days.

 

[hk blues 1,229]

2 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

I suppose the question could be along the lines of,

Would you rather live in a Rich country like Britain or a Poor country like Norway ???

What question?  

Who is asking the question?

To whom?

And why?

[welshbairn 19,066]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What I actually said was that if air travel is as bad as it is made out to be, then with the huge reduction in flights (coupled with the likes of China reducing production) over an extended period that I would have expected there to have been some noticeable effect on global temperatures and for Climate Change activists to be making the most of the opportunity they will likely never get again.

The carbon in the atmosphere won't magically drop overnight, there will just be a marginal drop in the increase. Fool.

[Detournement 1,958]

1 minute ago, MixuFixit said:

almost without exception funds that all of us depend upon for pensions etc. are subject to this at the moment. It's not about speculating, it's about it gubbing X years of someone's planned investments now, meaning when they come to retire their investment has had to repeat this growth over X years, meaning they have a crapper pension.

The companies are worth less though. It's not down to speculating it's down to the impending biggest recession in history.