Dalewhatdale

Like with any other drug or medicinal product, and particularly newly approved ones, "data on how many jabbed people have suffered from serious side effects let alone died" MUST be collected by law by each country's pharmacovigilance authorities. This data is being collected and analysed on a ongoing basis, it's the law at least in all advanced countries.

Lol, of course. There are a LOT more vaccinated people. You have to look at death RATES in each group, and its immediately evident to anyone with half a brain that UNvaccinated people are dieing more. Vaccination doesn't give a 100% guarantee (very few medical interventions do, but most are better than the alternative), but it decreases your risk of dieing from/with covid by a lot. If anything is closer to giving some kind of guarantee (of dieing from/with covid), that's being UNvaccinated. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/why-do-vaccinated-people-represent-most-covid-19-deaths-right-now/

Holy sh*t, are people still going on with that "WITH covid, not FROM covid" bs? Ignorance is truly rampant these days. There is now data from hundreds, if not thousands of millions of people both vacinated and not, and from those who have died WHILE having covid. And the indisputable fact is that UNVACCINATED people have a far higher risk of dieing WHILE having covid than VACCINATED people. Irrespective of whether they died FROM or just WITH it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/ How do you armchair virologists, epidemiologists and know-it-alls explain this? Give us a break already with your moronic, half-baked "theories".

Lol, you're clearly not a trained scientist. As for those quotes, Ebban wasn't a scientist, and while Thatcher and Crichton both had scientific or medical degrees, they'd clearly forgotten a lot about it by the time the said/wrote such things. Particularly Thatcher, who was an extremely bigoted, right-wing politician and as such hated the word "consensus" based on its ideological charge alone. And Chrichton enjoyed being a contrarian on issues like climate change and others for the sake of it, or the additional fame it broguht him; not surprisingly as that's why the vast majority of contrarians do what they do. Of course Crichton despised consensus. He had no idea of its role in scientific research, and that ignorance served his purposes. But without consensus based on solid evidence (goes without saying), there's just no science. I'm not talking about lay people debating things and agreeing on stuff out of thin air or based on ideology or personal preference, but of experts in a field accepting a number of assumptions as valid and a body of evidence as well established, thus providing a solid foundation to build on (i.e. do further research).

Nope, dude. "Everyone" didn't get it anyway, and those who did didn't get to suffer life-threatening disease, or die thanks precisely to the jabs. And if transmission hadn't been greatly reduced by mask mandates and other measures, millions wouldn't have made it to the stage where the life-saving jabs were available. Unfortunately, the virus keeps mutating into new variants that escape our immunity, and too many people keep dying or suffering from long-COVID as a result. If you find that wearing a mask is too much of a personal effort for you to make in order to help reducing virus circulation, well, at least try not to be so smug about it. It's the very least one could ask for.

Wait, you wrote "That's science" a few times on a previous post trying to dispute the efficacy of masks, but now that you've been proven wrong, you change your tune to "but scientists don't even agree with each other". Which is it? I have news for you, there has never been, is or will be anything on which 100% of scientists agree. There are many reasons for that, but I won't go into them. What there is, and that's how science operates most of the time is a consensus of experts, meaning that the vast majority of scientists working on a field agree that there is enough evidence to support what is accepted as the prevailing view. We're talking a level of agreement of 85-90% or even higher among the experts working in that particular field. The people who know the issue inside out and far better than anybody else in the world. Something like what's been going on the issue of global warming, except that question is even more muddled due to the massive economic interests of companies and people who'd rather destroy our planet than make less profit. Why would anyone choose to believe the small minority of outliers who don't support the prevailing consensus without providing solid evidence to do so, I'll never understand. Particularly when this small minority is populated to a high degree (and this pandemic has been no exception) with researchers who are NOT experts in the specific field being discussed (being a great motorbike pilot doesn't make you an expert in F1 racing), as well as with second-rate academicians who haven't made a mark with their work and jump at the first chance of gaining notoriety by being a contrarian based on no solid evidence. If you choose to believe what those people say just because it's more convenient for your lifestyle or fits with your own, totally unbased and non-scientific beliefs, that's your choice. I regret it as a fellow member of society, but that's how it is. Just don't say "that's science" when it's not. Finally, think about it. I don't know what your line of work is/was, nor how complex it is or how much training and experience it takes to become competent in it. But if you'd been working in some capacity for decades, and you read complete aficionados flippantly dismiss your expert opinions on the very subject you know better than most, you'd most likely think they were uninformed fools. Well...

Nonsense. That's what you call science. As mentioned in this academic review written by actual scientists: "A simple mask cut from a t-shirt achieved a fit score of 67, offering substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showing good fit with minimal leakage." https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 There's more: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264389 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01814-3 Masks DO work in the community setting by reducing transmission, and even a basic one is far better than no mask.

The 'entire world' is not. At all. There are still countries where masks are mandatory on public transportation, and for good reason. It's insane how many people are still diying from COVID or being left with serious long-term effects after recovering from infection. Pretending it isn't happening won't make things better. As always since this thing started (although you'd think some people would have learnt something), the thread is full of comments by armchair know-it-alls who believe they know better than trained doctor and scientists. Seriously, what a joke.

What on earth are those zig-zag lines for? I imagine they signal the proximity of a zebra crossing, but as a non-British driver (I supposed that's where they copied from) I find them ugly (not important) and distracting (important) as hell! They should've saved money on paint and kept it simple, for all the good this'll do.

You're joking. Madrid is totally a major travel hub airport (barely 4 million fewer passengers than Swampy in 2019, the latest year with normal traffic), only it doesn't cover the destinations you like. If you want to travel to the Caribbean, Mexico, Central or South America (and of course Europe), Madrid is your airport. While it's true that central Madrid has a slight problem with air quality, that is by EU standards, which are very stringent. That air quality ranking you linked to is a bit suspect, to say the least. Chiang Mai is listed below Madrid, but I can assure you Madrid never gets anywhere near the ridiculously high levels of dangerous particles Chiang Mai gets every year for 3 months during burning season. Not even remotely close.

Lol, really. Crime is most definitely not a big concern in Spain. You can cherry-pick all the stats you want and distort them to your liking. It won't change reality. As for "housing quality is a lot poorer in Spain than in Thailand, where the standard of housing in CM, BK, and Ko Samui is considerably higher than in most Spanish cities. I know, cause I lived in both." Sorry, that's bs. I have lived in both too and what you're saying is ridiculous. Really. What you probably mean is that you can get more bang for your buck in Thailand, but that's all. Then "winter in Palma, Barcelona, Madrid or Valencia will see your furniture moulding green from the humidity which the Winter causes. It's horrible. I lived it for 8 years." Lol, no, you haven't. Madrid is dry as f*cuk all year round, as anyone who's actually lived there will tell you. I could go on, but you're clearly clueless, so what's the point?

The UK is on the list??? ???? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/21/britain-covid-numbers-plan-b-data

No you didn't. You said "the cities are overrun with crime, Romanians, Africans.", implying a direct link between all crime and people from those origins. Now you drop your pretence and directly talk about Romanian and African gangs, making them sound like a massive problem that should make anyone think twice about moving to Spain. And they are not, except maybe in your worldview. What you said is doubly racist because I have no doubt in my mind that you consider Romanians second-rate whites, probably like Spaniards. No they are not. And again, not a problem, minor or major, an expat would face. There are dicy neighborhoods, but these are avoided by locals as well, just like in most Western cities. Housing poorer than in Thailand? LOL, sure. As for winters, what about the Canary Islands? You made a blanket statement about "winters in Spain" which simply was wrong. I gave you two regions where they are neither clammy nor unpleasant. Again, you must be joking. ISaying that cultural life in Spain is limited because bullfighting is falling out of favour (thankfully) actually shows how limited your concept of cultural life is. Spain has a far better cultural scene than Thailand by a mile. It may not be your speed, but that is just the truth. Madrid-Barajas is the 7th busiest airport in Europe, and has great connections with most of the continent. If you want to go to Asia, sure, it's not your best bet, but that's because the Madrid airport is more focused in Central and South America, as it should be for historical, cultural and economic reasons. Barcelona’s El Prat is not far behind and has plenty of connections with Europe too. Nope. Yes. Only in that there are few malls. Choice, and quality is generally far better here. The weather is better if you like heat and humidity all year long, granted. And you got it right the first time. You prefer it. But your blanket statements and generalizations don't make it so.

Lol, who do you think you are? You dont get to make openly racist statements and not get called out for it. Sorry if it comes across as "woke" or disrespectful towards your excellency. Then you say you know "the area" (which one?) and the people very well, but a lot (in fact, most) of what you say confirms you don't know Spain that well. You may know Barcelona well, but you don't get to say "Spanish cities are overrun with crime" just from the figures in Barcelona. Barcelona does have a petty theft problem, but believe or not, there are many other cities in Spain besides Barceona. And Barcelona isn't even much worse than Berlin, as per your own chart. Also, you're the first person I ever heard calling graffiti a crime, especially one that would make an expat decide against moving to a country. I see it as an annoyance and nothing more. As for the "hooligans", again you may be talking about Barcelona, cause it's definitely not a major problem elsewhere, or at least not a problem the average expat would encounter in their daily life. I'll take grafitti before non-existing, or leg-breaking, riddled-with-holes and other obstacles sidewalks any day. Then you go on: Again, you're clearly talking about Barcelona; go elsewhere like parts of Southern Spain or the isles, and you can even get year-round beautiful, mild, sunny weather. You prefer your winters cold and dry? Go to the central area of the country. So what? What do you care as a retired expat? Specially since this doesn't translate to significantly higher crime (petty theft or worse) than in even Berlin, as per your chart (what's the Crime Index, 42 in Berlin vs 47 in Barcelona? That's nothing). These are all mostly subjective. I don't think Spain is a long way away from Thailand in culinary options at all, and I love Thai food and the Bangkok restaurant scene is really impressive in terms of international options. Massage? Sure. Shopping? No way, unles you're into big honking shopping malls. Not a lot of those in Spain, and most people don't want them anyway. As for the climate, again, it's personal. In most of Spain you get four seasons, in some parts with reasonably mild winters and summers. You prefer the year-round crushing heat and humidity in Thailand, sprinkled with dangerous-to-breath air during burning season in many areas? By all means. Just don't make it sound like a no-brainer, cause it's far from it. Then you conclude with: Which, again, it's down to personal taste. Cultural life in Thailand is pretty limited, road trips around the country are inherently life-threatening due to poor driving discipline and education, and lack of enforcement of road rules, etc. it's hard to run or play sports outdoors due to lack of facilities and the heat and humidity, I could go on. If by "a more interesting life", you mean bars filled with poor young women waiting for older expats and their money, then yes, Spain is not for you.

Dude, no way. In countries like Spain and Portugal you can have a positively lavish retirement on 2 million bucks. Add to that cheaper alcohol and coffee, far better roads and public services, and so on.