On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 10/07/21 16:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:51:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
> > <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/07/21 03:22, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 04:05:12 +0200, Guillaume <mes...@bottle.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Le 09/07/2021 à 20:03, whit3rd a écrit :
> >>>>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. Years of panic-level fear can't be healthy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Depends. Fear is normal for prey animals, and 'panic-level' just indicates
> >>>>> adrenaline (which is ALSO useful) response.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's stress. Stress is useful in emergency situations indeed. But it
> >>>> was never meant to be chronic and unresolved. Normal stress you're
> >>>> mentioning is acute and supposed to help you quickly get out of the
> >>>> stressful situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> We now know pretty well the deleterious effects of chronic stress on
> >>>> human's health in our current modern society. This isn't good.
> >>>
> >>> What's ironic is that we live in a world that is far safer than the
> >>> ones our ancestors evolved in, but we seem to be more afraid.
> >>
> >> In some ways it is far safer, but...
> >>
> >> It also is more dangerous in many ways, principally because
> >> we have a far wider range of things we can do and experience.
> >>
> >>
> >>> The fear is an evolutionary, vestigial legacy.
> >>
> >> Evolutionary yes, vestigial no.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Maybe it's like kids who get allergies because their houses are too
> >>> clean, an immune AGC thing.
> >>
> >> That is still, I believe, a hypothesis, albeit an
> >> interesting one.
> >>
> >> But analogies are dangerous and often generate more
> >> smoke than light.
> >
> > Ideas are dangerous to most people.
> That, as you are well aware, is a trite snarky response
> which completely avoids thinking about the points.

We all do what we do best. John is good at this because he obviously loves it. It's ironic that he often protests against such off topic threads and yet spends more space here posting off topic including the threads he starts himself. The reality is he loves this venue mostly because he *can* post off topic.

Off Topic Larkin, OTL. Snarky, rude and often just plain nasty.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:16:02 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 17:48:22 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 10/07/21 16:02, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 08:51:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
> >> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/07/21 03:22, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 04:05:12 +0200, Guillaume <mes...@bottle.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Le 09/07/2021 à 20:03, whit3rd a écrit :
> >>>>>> On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 10:48:23 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes. Years of panic-level fear can't be healthy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Depends. Fear is normal for prey animals, and 'panic-level' just indicates
> >>>>>> adrenaline (which is ALSO useful) response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's stress. Stress is useful in emergency situations indeed. But it
> >>>>> was never meant to be chronic and unresolved. Normal stress you're
> >>>>> mentioning is acute and supposed to help you quickly get out of the
> >>>>> stressful situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We now know pretty well the deleterious effects of chronic stress on
> >>>>> human's health in our current modern society. This isn't good.
> >>>>
> >>>> What's ironic is that we live in a world that is far safer than the
> >>>> ones our ancestors evolved in, but we seem to be more afraid.
> >>>
> >>> In some ways it is far safer, but...
> >>>
> >>> It also is more dangerous in many ways, principally because
> >>> we have a far wider range of things we can do and experience.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The fear is an evolutionary, vestigial legacy.
> >>>
> >>> Evolutionary yes, vestigial no.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Maybe it's like kids who get allergies because their houses are too
> >>>> clean, an immune AGC thing.
> >>>
> >>> That is still, I believe, a hypothesis, albeit an
> >>> interesting one.
> >>>
> >>> But analogies are dangerous and often generate more
> >>> smoke than light.
> >>
> >> Ideas are dangerous to most people.
> >
> >That, as you are well aware, is a trite snarky response
> >which completely avoids thinking about the points.
> How would you rate a statement like
> But analogies are dangerous and often generate more
> smoke than light.

How about "accurate"?

Analogies are typically only useful to illustrate a single perspective of a problem. Often people try to extend them too far or to use them in place of the real issue when trying to draw a conclusion. That is a misuse. Because people do this more often than useful application, the statement is accurate.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 10/07/21 22:00, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 18:55:56 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/21 18:21, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 09:50:40 -0700, Don Y
>>> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 9:15 AM, Guillaume wrote:
>>>>> Le 10/07/2021 à 04:22, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com a écrit :
>>>>>> What's ironic is that we live in a world that is far safer than the
>>>>>> ones our ancestors evolved in, but we seem to be more afraid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course. If you've been isolated from any danger for most of your life, the
>>>>> thought alone of facing one is extremely disturbing. Because it's just not
>>>>> something that is part of your life. And you just don't know how to react to
>>>>> it. The unknown is very scary. Much more so than a known, but dangerous situation.
>>>>
>>>> Few of us are isolated from any danger" -- except children who are
>>>> too naive to understand the dangers around them.
>>>>
>>>> We all deal with the potential for automobile accidents, gun violence,
>>>> "road rage", etc. every day. We don't *ignore* it (unless we are stupid).
>>>> We are aware of it but manage to keep it's impact on our existence at
>>>> a manageable level.
>>>>
>>>> [If you have NOT had a WEEKLY "close call" from some other driver running a
>>>> light, crossing traffic without signaling, a pedestrian stepping out into
>>>> the roadway, etc. then you must live a charmed life!]
>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it's like kids who get allergies because their houses are too
>>>>>> clean, an immune AGC thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well yes. This is probably at least partly linked to just training. If your
>>>>> immune system is insufficiently "trained", then a number of issues can follow.
>>>>> Likewise, if we are insufficiently trained to risky situations, we will just
>>>>> react to them, when they happen, in a very inappropriate way.
>>>>
>>>> Gee, I guess my allergy to grass must be traced to NOT having a lawn in
>>>> my living room, kitchen or bedroom, growing up (despite the half acre
>>>> that I had to mow, weekly).
>>>>
>>>>> And as I said, if solving the issue is beyond your control, then stress becomes
>>>>> counter-productive. In such a case (and certainly our ancestors did encounter
>>>>> many dangerous situations they had no control over), you have two options: just
>>>>> accept it and move on with your life, or focus on it as though you were going
>>>>> to control it, but you can't control it. A nasty feedback loop follows.
>>>>
>>>> Stress inherently is associated with situations that are at or beyond your
>>>> level of control.
>>>
>>> If a hazard is beyond your control, the sensible thing to do is ignore
>>> it and enjoy life. The crazy thing to do is to let the fear impair
>>> you.
>>
>> The sensible things are to assess the hazard and possible
>> mitigations. Then apply the mitigation(s) that usefully
>> reduce the hazard while not being unacceptably onerous.
>
> Then it's not beyond your control.
>
> You can always cut over to superstitious protections, like wearing
> your lucky hat or something.
>
> Or, also common, expend a lot of worry and energy avoiding PPB risks.

You appear to be conflating the probability of encountering
a problem with the consequences of encountering that problem.

If there are acceptable mitigations that reduce the probability,
then they are worth taking.

A classic dilemma is what to do with people that increase
the probability that /other/ people will suffer the consequences.
Smoking and passive smoking are a canonical example.
Typhoid Mary is another.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
> >>> kissing distance.
> >>
> >> So now you pretend you don't understand.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Good grief, google
> >>>
> >>> viruses float through the air
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
> >> have jet engines in your book.
> >> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
> >>
> >> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
> >
> > Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
> > dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.
> >
> > Check a high bookshelf. Dust doesn't have legs to climb up there
> > either.
> >
> > Experts mocked Pasteur when he suggested that bacteria float around in
> > the air.
> >
> Please answer the question - how do they escape the saliva.
> So far you did not do better than "jet engines".
>
> You *know* you are wrong and you are deliberately spreading
> the lies of some political camp (who could have at least
> tried to do somewhat less moronic than that "viruses being too
> tiny for a mask to get captured" claim).

Larkin truly believes the silly stuff he says. It doesn't matter that you explain to him clearly why he is wrong. He chooses to believe something else and will talk all around the facts to prove what he believes.

We can all have biases. But most of us will listen to reason. Some, not so much.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 11/7/21 7:08 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 12:52:53 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 5:16, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 00:30:24 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/2021 22:04, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 21:04:30 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2021 20:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 19:13:56 +0200, Guillaume <message@bottle.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Le 08/07/2021 à 01:51, Tom Gardner a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> This is an interesting study, since they compared MRI scans of the
>>>>>>>>>>> brain of many people, before and after having covid.
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously the availability of pre-infection imaging data helps
>>>>>>>>>>> avoid the danger of pre-existing risk factors or clinical
>>>>>>>>>>> conditions being mis-interpreted as disease effects.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OTOH, it looks rather clear that Covid has caused significant changes in
>>>>>>>>>> many people's brain, even those that were never actually infected. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Years of panic-level fear can't be healthy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some people will alter their behavior for the rest of their lives.
>>>>>>>>> Some will wear masks forever. Maybe they will stay at home and free up
>>>>>>>>> some parking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wearing masks in closed spaces full of people is more hygienic, with
>>>>>>>> or without a pandemic.
>>>>>>>> However it works if the vast majority of the people are willing
>>>>>>>> to protect the others - and thus hope to be protected themselves - from
>>>>>>>> the various seasonal infections, which may be not as deadly but are
>>>>>>>> disruptive and unpleasant all right. Given the not so receding number
>>>>>>>> of people keen to look different by not complying to such an
>>>>>>>> easy to do requirement chances are we'll be back to prepandemic
>>>>>>>> figures of flu, running noses etc. colds before we know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dimiter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colds confer immunity against other colds. So isolation probably means
>>>>>>> a person will get fewer and more severe colds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A population that hasn't had any colds for a decade or so would be
>>>>>>> fuel for a wildfire; one spark will set it off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vaccines are the proper solution to this dilemma.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh reducing colds and flu infections by a factor of 2 or 3 because of
>>>>>> better hygiene achievable by such a cheap way like people wearing a mask
>>>>>> when needed won't reduce anybody's immune response. Most people have
>>>>>> had years without a single cold and years with more than one.
>>>>>> Suggesting "keep on eating shit so you can tolerate it when you
>>>>>> are served it" is not the brightest of all ideas, I can assure you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If only people who want to demonstrate courage they do not have
>>>>>> by not wearing a mask in crowded spaces were fewer the work hours lost
>>>>>> because of being ill would drop at least by a half.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vaccines against colds - good luck with that one.
>>>>>> I am not so sure I like the idea of people spitting in my face because
>>>>>> they are vaccinated but well, it is a personal preference I suppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimiter
>>>>>
>>>>> The original rationale for masks, the cough/fomite/touch-a-surface/
>>>>> touch-your-eyes/six-foot-radius thing has been, what's the word,
>>>>> deprecated. The viruses seem to be tiny particles that float all over
>>>>> the place for hours. They rarely see the weave of the cloth mask as
>>>>> they cruise through.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have expected someone with engineering background to not fall
>>>> for such an illiterate suggestion made up by liars from political
>>>> camps.
>>>> Try the following: stand in front of a clean mirror at 10cm distance
>>>> and recite out loud for a minute something of your choice.
>>>
>>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
>>> kissing distance.
>>
>> So now you pretend you don't understand.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Look at the part of the mirror in front of your mouth.
>>>> Wipe it clean, then put on a mask.
>>>> Repeat the reciting exercise from the same distance.
>>>> Look at the mirror again.
>>>>
>>>> And *NO*, viruses have neither feet nor wings, the do not float,
>>>> fly or walk around. They spread embedded in *droplets*.
>>>
>>> Good grief, google
>>>
>>> viruses float through the air
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
>> have jet engines in your book.
>> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
>>
>> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
>>
>> Dimiter
>>
>>
>>
>
> Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
> dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.

All of those dust motes are >1 micron, or they wouldn't deflect light.
That is at least 30 times the volume of a virus particle.

CH

On 7/11/2021 2:31, Rick C wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
>>>>> kissing distance.
>>>>
>>>> So now you pretend you don't understand.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Good grief, google
>>>>>
>>>>> viruses float through the air
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
>>>> have jet engines in your book.
>>>> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
>>>>
>>>> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
>>>
>>> Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
>>> dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.
>>>
>>> Check a high bookshelf. Dust doesn't have legs to climb up there
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Experts mocked Pasteur when he suggested that bacteria float around in
>>> the air.
>>>
>> Please answer the question - how do they escape the saliva.
>> So far you did not do better than "jet engines".
>>
>> You *know* you are wrong and you are deliberately spreading
>> the lies of some political camp (who could have at least
>> tried to do somewhat less moronic than that "viruses being too
>> tiny for a mask to get captured" claim).
>
> Larkin truly believes the silly stuff he says. It doesn't matter that you explain to him clearly why he is wrong. He chooses to believe something else and will talk all around the facts to prove what he believes.
>
> We can all have biases. But most of us will listen to reason. Some, not so much.
>

I doubt he believes that nonsense, he is not illiterate after all.
Looks like he is a party activist, I have never seen anyone not being
such stand behind idiotic claims like the one "viruses too tiny for
the mask to work".

On 11/07/21 10:55, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 7/11/2021 2:31, Rick C wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
>>>>>> kissing distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now you pretend you don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good grief, google
>>>>>>
>>>>>> viruses float through the air
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
>>>>> have jet engines in your book.
>>>>> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
>>>> dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.
>>>>
>>>> Check a high bookshelf. Dust doesn't have legs to climb up there
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> Experts mocked Pasteur when he suggested that bacteria float around in
>>>> the air.
>>>>
>>> Please answer the question - how do they escape the saliva.
>>> So far you did not do better than "jet engines".
>>>
>>> You *know* you are wrong and you are deliberately spreading
>>> the lies of some political camp (who could have at least
>>> tried to do somewhat less moronic than that "viruses being too
>>> tiny for a mask to get captured" claim).
>>
>> Larkin truly believes the silly stuff he says.  It doesn't matter that you
>> explain to him clearly why he is wrong.  He chooses to believe something else
>> and will talk all around the facts to prove what he believes.
>>
>> We can all have biases.  But most of us will listen to reason.  Some, not so
>> much.
>>
>
> I doubt he believes that nonsense, he is not illiterate after all.
> Looks like he is a party activist, I have never seen anyone not being
> such stand behind idiotic claims like the one "viruses too tiny for
> the mask to work".

Everybody has their blind spots; e.g. notoriously Linus Pauling
and Vitamin C.

Personally I suspect this is such a blind spot, with somebody
thinking that competence in one area translates into competence
in another.

I'm not sure whether his other blind spot (climate change
denial) supports the activist or blind spot hypotheses - or
both :)

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:36:14 PM UTC+10, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 11/07/21 10:55, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> > On 7/11/2021 2:31, Rick C wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
> >>>>>> kissing distance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So now you pretend you don't understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good grief, google
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> viruses float through the air
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
> >>>>> have jet engines in your book.
> >>>>> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
> >>>> dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.
> >>>>
> >>>> Check a high bookshelf. Dust doesn't have legs to climb up there
> >>>> either.
> >>>>
> >>>> Experts mocked Pasteur when he suggested that bacteria float around in
> >>>> the air.
> >>>>
> >>> Please answer the question - how do they escape the saliva.
> >>> So far you did not do better than "jet engines".
> >>>
> >>> You *know* you are wrong and you are deliberately spreading
> >>> the lies of some political camp (who could have at least
> >>> tried to do somewhat less moronic than that "viruses being too
> >>> tiny for a mask to get captured" claim).
> >>
> >> Larkin truly believes the silly stuff he says. It doesn't matter that you
> >> explain to him clearly why he is wrong. He chooses to believe something else
> >> and will talk all around the facts to prove what he believes.
> >>
> >> We can all have biases. But most of us will listen to reason. Some, not so
> >> much.
> >
> > I doubt he believes that nonsense, he is not illiterate after all.

If you chose to read - and believe - stuff written by people silly ideas, or written to mislead people into believing something the author finds it advantageous for his readers to believe. mere literacy doesn't provide much protection. You have to read critically, and John Larkin doesn't seem to be able to do that.

> > Looks like he is a party activist, I have never seen anyone not being such stand behind idiotic claims like the one "viruses too tiny for the mask to work".

He doesn't seem to be a party activitist. His friend James Arthur is, and once effectively confessed to having got money from the Koch brothers - indirectly - for being a Tea Party activist, and doing his bit to dismantle the Republican Party.

> Everybody has their blind spots; e.g. notoriously Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.

Animals that can synthesise Vitamin C synthesise quite a lot of it. Pauling thought that meant that having a lot of Vitamin C was a good idea. He did have habit of getting great insights, and not getting them quite right. His helical structure for DNA was almost right.
> Personally I suspect this is such a blind spot, with somebody
> thinking that competence in one area translates into competence
> in another.
>
> I'm not sure whether his other blind spot (climate change denial) supports the activist or blind spot hypotheses - or both :)

James Arthur and the Koch brothers both dislike climate change. The Koch brothers would have a much smaller income if people burnt less fossil carbon for fuel.

"Through Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers influenced more than 400 members of Congress to sign a pledge to vote against climate change legislation that does not include equivalent tax cuts. In 2010, Koch Industries supported efforts to roll back emission regulations in California."

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 08/07/2021 18:20, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-07-08 19:00, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 17:38:25 +0100, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/21 16:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 16:03:33 +0100, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/07/21 02:18, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/2021 4:51 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>> This is an interesting study, since they compared MRI scans of the
>>>>>>> brain of many people, before and after having covid.
>>>>>>> Obviously the availability of pre-infection imaging data helps
>>>>>>> avoid the danger of pre-existing risk factors or clinical
>>>>>>> conditions being mis-interpreted as disease effects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We used structural and functional brain scans from before
>>>>>>> and after infection, to compare longitudinal brain changes
>>>>>>> between these 394 COVID-19 patients and 388 controls who
>>>>>>> were matched for age, sex, ethnicity and interval between
>>>>>>> scans. We identified significant effects of COVID-19 in the
>>>>>>> brain with a loss of grey matter in the [...several different
>>>>>>> and widespread areas]."
>>>>>>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34189535/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Death is the least of it, particularly since many of the
>>>>>>> dead would have been harvested in the near future with or
>>>>>>> without covid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Awww, cmon... we all KNOW it's no worse than the *flu*.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <rolls eyes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The interesting thing will be the inevitable followup studies
>>>>>> (when the smoke clears from the battle) that will come along
>>>>>> in the next few years exposing other "issues" that those
>>>>>> afflicted will have to deal with going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a *lot* of research on long covid happening here.
>>>>> I'm one of the 500k people in the BioBank study, but not
>>>>> one of the 40k that had MRI scans.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just been informed that another longitudinal study
>>>>> I've been in involved in (ALSPAC / Children of the 90s)
>>>>> will be doing some research on it.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to see if any brain functions get *better*
>>>> after covid.
>>>
>>> Unlikely, unless you can hypothesise a cause and effect.
>>
>> I've ordered "Drunk" by Edward Slingerland. One of his ideas is that
>> alcohol preferentially numbs the frontal cortex, and the cortex is the
>> prudent, cautious, people-don't-do-that part. So alcohol (and other
>> things) in mild doses enhance creativity. Artists are notorious
>> drunks.
>>
>> I had Covid in April 2020. I had some long-term effects, mostly gone
>> now, but I think I'm better at inventing electronics now. That's just
>> possible.
>>
>> My athletic abilities are sure improved by one rum and coke. I think
>> less, react better.
>>
>> There are times to think, and times when it's best to not overdo it.
>>
>
> I'm an avid Argentine Tango dancer. I find that as little as a single
> glass of wine thoroughly destroys my ability to dance properly, even
> though it seems to have little or no effect on my performance in
> most other activities, even other dances. Argentine Tango dancing
> is special that way. It requires a clear head, concentration,
> creativity and a lot of other more subtle things. Only a little bit
> of alcohol messes that up, and my partners notice.

My recollection from video gaming was that the first third to a half of
a pint of UK beer took the edge off muscle control overshoot but after
that performance was downhill all the way with increasing consumption.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:36:08 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/07/21 10:55, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 7/11/2021 2:31, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many people talk loud into your face from 10 cm away? That's
>>>>>>> kissing distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now you pretend you don't understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good grief, google
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> viruses float through the air
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. So how do they escape the saliva of the carrier, perhaps they
>>>>>> have jet engines in your book.
>>>>>> Time for you to rewrite the medicine basics, LOL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give me a break, please stop telling all that nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look at a sunbeam or a laser in a dark room. You'll see thousands of
>>>>> dust motes drifting around. They don't have jet engines or tiny wings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check a high bookshelf. Dust doesn't have legs to climb up there
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Experts mocked Pasteur when he suggested that bacteria float around in
>>>>> the air.
>>>>>
>>>> Please answer the question - how do they escape the saliva.
>>>> So far you did not do better than "jet engines".
>>>>
>>>> You *know* you are wrong and you are deliberately spreading
>>>> the lies of some political camp (who could have at least
>>>> tried to do somewhat less moronic than that "viruses being too
>>>> tiny for a mask to get captured" claim).
>>>
>>> Larkin truly believes the silly stuff he says.  It doesn't matter that you
>>> explain to him clearly why he is wrong.  He chooses to believe something else
>>> and will talk all around the facts to prove what he believes.
>>>
>>> We can all have biases.  But most of us will listen to reason.  Some, not so
>>> much.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt he believes that nonsense, he is not illiterate after all.
>> Looks like he is a party activist, I have never seen anyone not being
>> such stand behind idiotic claims like the one "viruses too tiny for
>> the mask to work".
>
>Everybody has their blind spots; e.g. notoriously Linus Pauling
>and Vitamin C.
>
>Personally I suspect this is such a blind spot, with somebody
>thinking that competence in one area translates into competence
>in another.
>
>I'm not sure whether his other blind spot (climate change
>denial) supports the activist or blind spot hypotheses - or
>both :)

If you can breate easily through a cloth mask, or smell smoke, small
stuff will pass through the weave. Vocal chords are great atomizers of
watery droplets loaded with viruses. The water evaporates and clumps
of residual stuff, loaded with multiple viruses, become essentially
floating dust particles that are in no hurry to drop onto nearby
surfaces.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/flow-physics-of-covid19/476E32549012B3620D2452F30F2567F1

(sort of a summary of how much we don't know)

It occurrs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
motes. So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more
small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.

After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 11/07/21 15:00, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> It occurrs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
> in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
> one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
> motes. So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more
> small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.

It wouldn't surprise me if that happened to some extent.
The important questions are:
- to what extent
- is it better or worse with the mask; nothing is perfect

> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

Yes, and then the question is how long they remain viable.

If you are working in a "high virus density" environment
(e.g. a hospital), then you should take far more precautions
than elsewhere. Certainly doctors etc are taught how to take
PPE on and off; there's a video of it somewhere on yootube,
and it is quite understandable and a hell of a palava.

Since I avoid high risk areas as far as possible, I take
very few precautions about how I use a mask.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 12:00:54 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:36:08 +0100, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 11/07/21 10:55, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2021 2:31, Rick C wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:43:19 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>> On 7/11/2021 0:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 21:26:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/10/2021 18:13, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> If you can breathe easily through a cloth mask, or smell smoke, small
> stuff will pass through the weave.

Smelling smoke depends on detecting individual molecules - which are lot smaller than the water droplets that carry Covid-19 molecules around, and are lot less likely to stick to the hydrophilic surfaces in a woven cloth mask.

> Vocal chords are great atomizers of watery droplets loaded with viruses. The water evaporates and clumps of residual stuff, loaded with multiple viruses, become essentially floating dust particles that are in no hurry to drop onto nearby surfaces.

Not all the water evaporates by any means - the biological stuff does retain a lot of it, and the clumps remain a lot stickier than regular dust.
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/flow-physics-of-covid19/476E32549012B3620D2452F30F2567F1
>
> (sort of a summary of how much we don't know)
>
> It occurs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
> in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
> one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
> motes.

Why should they be expelled from the fabric? You'd expect them to stick to it and get buried in the gaps between the individual fibres.

> So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.

If John Larkin's half-baked intuition is correct, which is unlikely.
> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

There aren't that many viral particles around, and they aren't large. John Larkin can't do quantitative thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:20:18 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/07/21 15:00, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> It occurrs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
>> in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
>> one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
>> motes. So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more
>> small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if that happened to some extent.
>The important questions are:
> - to what extent
> - is it better or worse with the mask; nothing is perfect
>
>
>> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.
>
>Yes, and then the question is how long they remain viable.
>
>If you are working in a "high virus density" environment
>(e.g. a hospital), then you should take far more precautions
>than elsewhere. Certainly doctors etc are taught how to take
>PPE on and off; there's a video of it somewhere on yootube,
>and it is quite understandable and a hell of a palava.
>
>Since I avoid high risk areas as far as possible, I take
>very few precautions about how I use a mask.

It's shocking to me, after all this time, how much we don't know. The
sorts of experiments that people used to do are now "unethical."

Seems that letting millions of people die, and destroying millions of
businesses, is kinda unethical too.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:00:54 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> If you can breate easily through a cloth mask, or smell smoke, small
> stuff will pass through the weave. Vocal chords are great atomizers of
> watery droplets loaded with viruses. The water evaporates and clumps
> of residual stuff, loaded with multiple viruses, become essentially
> floating dust particles that are in no hurry to drop onto nearby
> surfaces.

If water has evaporated, the virus particle is soon to become nonviable.
The virus is not a spore, not hardened to survive long times out of aqueous medium.
Floors have been found to have lots of virus particles, so 'no hurry to drop'
might apply, but that's a statistical question.

The virus could as well 'float' into and out of your lungs without being
trapped there, but that's not the high-probability scenario.

> It occurrs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
> in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
> one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
> motes. So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more
> small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.
>
> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

That's why mask disposal or laundry is another part of the solution.
Filling your lungs with virus is not part of the solution.
While wearing a mask, your moist breath might inhibit the 'drying out'
of trapped material. The mask material by itself does not
spontaneously expel particles into the air. If such particles are
released, half the time it's on your inhalation... no big deal if you're
already infected.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:43:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> It's shocking to me, after all this time, how much we don't know. The
> sorts of experiments that people used to do are now "unethical."

Being shocked isn't productive, so do some experiment design instead.
Experiments can be without people or with non-infective materials,
and can be challenged as uninformative, so it's rarely easy to be certain
of the results' significance. Unethical means you're thinking of something
naughty, doesn't it? And you intend to publish that work?

> Seems that letting millions of people die, and destroying millions of
> businesses, is kinda unethical too.

Persons are mortal, 'letting' them die is inevitable, unless you refer to
assault with that odd language?

"Destroying businesses" sounds bad, but it just means reallocation of capital
and human resources, i.e. means a normal business decision. Happens every
Tuesday, after lunch. A pandemic event disturbs 'business as usual', and always
will, so if you want to save 'business as usual', strengthen WHO and CDC and other
protections against disease, like Trump did not.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 10:00:54 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> If you can breate easily through a cloth mask, or smell smoke, small
> stuff will pass through the weave. Vocal chords are great atomizers of
> watery droplets loaded with viruses. The water evaporates and clumps
> of residual stuff, loaded with multiple viruses, become essentially
> floating dust particles that are in no hurry to drop onto nearby
> surfaces.

Cloth masks are not N95 and are not actually rated at all since they do not work as well.

> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/flow-physics-of-covid19/476E32549012B3620D2452F30F2567F1
>
> (sort of a summary of how much we don't know)

"Droplets larger than a critical size settle faster than they evaporate, and so contaminate surrounding surfaces. Droplets smaller than this size evaporate faster than they settle, so forming droplet nuclei that can stay airborne for hours and may be transported over long distances."

Yeah, so some smaller particles float and larger ones don't. That says nothing about what gets past a mask. Bottom line is N95 are the best tool in our arsenal to fighting this pandemic. There are no guarantees. I think many people who resist wearing masks are expressing their anxiety about the disease. It is easier to reject the need for fighting the pandemic than it is to try to take actions you don't understand. I feel this myself as I understand many of the limitations of our efforts. Much of the inconsistency is from trying to create regulations that match well against reality. I get that and obey the rules that are mostly window dressing because if nothing else it makes people feel better while resisting any of the regulations just makes more people doubt the whole effort. The most important thing now is to have regulations that include effective measures and get people to follow them.

Here in Puerto Rico they measure temperature and use hand cleaner when entering any business, no matter how small and of course everyone wears masks. Many places have a worker to enforce this and people simply have no problem with any of it. As a result the numbers are very low here.. but, like much of the US, they are starting to ramp back up.

> It occurrs to me that if one expels a large droplet, and it is trapped
> in a cloth mask, and it evaporates there, and the mask is flexed as
> one later exhales, the residual is expelled from the fabric as tiny
> motes. So a mask can convert big, short-range droplets into many more
> small, long-range particles with high virus concentrations.

There's no reason to think significant numbers of these dry particles will be expelled while breathing. Once microscopic objects come in contact very strong atomic forces hold them together. These forces are not strong compared to covalent bonds, but compared to the mass and acceleration forces they feel, these forces are enough to prevent them from parting. Also, the droplets have wetted the fibers of the mask and the solute have been dispersed, so their are no "particles" to be ejected.

> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

That's why they are disposable.

I wish once in a while you would do your own thinking rather than asking others to think for you.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 7/11/2021 7:00 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> After all, if a mask traps viruses, it fills up with viruses. Yuk.

Which is why you treat them as "single use" products.

How often did you reuse condoms?

I put my mask on just before entering a store (public place).
I keep it on until I return to my vehicle. I sanitize my
hands (cuz I've "touched stuff" along the way). Then, remove
the mask by grabbing the paracord straps that encircle my
head (i.e., NOT the fabric of the mask). Then, sanitize my
hands, again.

In 18 months, the two of us have just finished our second
liter bottle of sanitizer. So, it's obviously not been a
significant factor in our lives!

On 11/07/2021 19:21, whit3rd wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:43:46 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> It's shocking to me, after all this time, how much we don't know. The
>> sorts of experiments that people used to do are now "unethical."
>
> Being shocked isn't productive, so do some experiment design instead.
> Experiments can be without people or with non-infective materials,
> and can be challenged as uninformative, so it's rarely easy to be certain
> of the results' significance. Unethical means you're thinking of something
> naughty, doesn't it? And you intend to publish that work?

UK has been doing challenge tests on fit young volunteers but the
results are less than satisfactory since the predominant strain now has
something like 5x the infectious power of the Wuhan one that they
studied. Trying to hit a moving target is difficult. The Wuhan strain is
all but extinct in the wild now so their data will not be that relevant.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/q-a-human-challenge-studies-of-covid-19-underway-in-uk-68908

I would still like to see it published though.
>
>> Seems that letting millions of people die, and destroying millions of
>> businesses, is kinda unethical too.
>
> Persons are mortal, 'letting' them die is inevitable, unless you refer to
> assault with that odd language?

You can only control the number of deaths from Covid by employing
counter measures to minimise its spread. Most of those will have impacts
on businesses - although not as great in some as in others.

Locking down hard and fast seems to work much better than allowing it to
run out of control until you are within a week of health system overload
and then locking down. Not that the UK seems able to learn that lesson.

Tourism, air travel and the hospitality industry are toast at the
moment. UK has a green list of countries you can fly to but those
countries would be absolute fools to let delta Covid infected Brits in.
>
> "Destroying businesses" sounds bad, but it just means reallocation of capital
> and human resources, i.e. means a normal business decision. Happens every
> Tuesday, after lunch. A pandemic event disturbs 'business as usual', and always
> will, so if you want to save 'business as usual', strengthen WHO and CDC and other
> protections against disease, like Trump did not.

Some businesses may well go to the wall. UK government has been
relatively good at supporting businesses through the pandemic but
running up a very large debt in the process. Unlocking too soon and in a
cavalier manner (which is exactly what we are about to do) will almost
certainly result in yet another lockdown in this "irreversible" process.

The trouble with electing a populist narcissistic demagogue to power is
that you get crazy decisions made by your national government. The Boris
is pretty much Trump lite with a smattering of pig Latin thrown in.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> The trouble with electing a populist narcissistic demagogue to power is
> that you get crazy decisions made by your national government. The Boris
> is pretty much Trump lite with a smattering of pig Latin thrown in.

Lol! I'm not sure what you mean by a smattering of pig Latin, but it made me literally laugh out loud. Does Boris talk funny in some way? Or is this just to say that he talks a lot of nonsense?

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 12/07/2021 14:31, Rick C wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>> The trouble with electing a populist narcissistic demagogue to power is
>> that you get crazy decisions made by your national government. The Boris
>> is pretty much Trump lite with a smattering of pig Latin thrown in.
>
> Lol! I'm not sure what you mean by a smattering of pig Latin, but it made me literally laugh out loud. Does Boris talk funny in some way? Or is this just to say that he talks a lot of nonsense?

Inserting random Latin phrases into oratory to sound erudite. He was
educated at Eton then Oxford and behaves like a self entitled toff.

Here is a sample from weekly satirical radio show "Dead Ringers" 1m30 in
(you might also like the following sketch). You may need to spoof a UK
IP address to gain access to the BBC site Sounds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xg1j

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 11:41:36 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 12/07/2021 14:31, Rick C wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> The trouble with electing a populist narcissistic demagogue to power is
> >> that you get crazy decisions made by your national government. The Boris
> >> is pretty much Trump lite with a smattering of pig Latin thrown in.
> >
> > Lol! I'm not sure what you mean by a smattering of pig Latin, but it made me literally laugh out loud. Does Boris talk funny in some way? Or is this just to say that he talks a lot of nonsense?
> Inserting random Latin phrases into oratory to sound erudite. He was
> educated at Eton then Oxford and behaves like a self entitled toff.
>
> Here is a sample from weekly satirical radio show "Dead Ringers" 1m30 in
> (you might also like the following sketch). You may need to spoof a UK
> IP address to gain access to the BBC site Sounds.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xg1j

I was able to play the track, but unfortunately I don't speak the language, so I couldn't make much sense of it.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 7/12/2021 18:41, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 12/07/2021 14:31, Rick C wrote:
>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> The trouble with electing a populist narcissistic demagogue to power is
>>> that you get crazy decisions made by your national government. The Boris
>>> is pretty much Trump lite with a smattering of pig Latin thrown in.
>>
>> Lol!  I'm not sure what you mean by a smattering of pig Latin, but it
>> made me literally laugh out loud.  Does Boris talk funny in some way?
>> Or is this just to say that he talks a lot of nonsense?
>
> Inserting random Latin phrases into oratory to sound erudite. He was
> educated at Eton then Oxford and behaves like a self entitled toff.
>
> Here is a sample from weekly satirical radio show "Dead Ringers" 1m30 in
> (you might also like the following sketch). You may need to spoof a UK
> IP address to gain access to the BBC site Sounds.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000xg1j
>
>

I liked the sketches, pretty good. Did not comprehend only "Harry Kane",
though I do understand him in real life interviews :). Wayne Rooney was
harder, Alex Ferguson and Kenny Dalglish - well, I have sincerely
wondered at times whether they can understand each other... I only
manage to capture every other word or so.
(The audio was available to a Bulgarian IP address, too, so I guess it
is not restricted, unlike say "match of the day").
Liked particularly the part when the labour leader talked about the
skill it takes to lose... Was pretty good.
Boris sounded quite authentic to my ear (Kane did not), Trump was pretty
close, too.
At the moment I think I hear Anne Robinson ("The Weakest Link" was on
BBC World for years here), not bad either.