placeholder

===== These same four decades you used began with the end of a busy post-war building era, necessary to compensate for zero building through the WWII years and just after them. After that then the numbers of annual new builds were exceptionally high. The graph I posted indicates a recovery in recent years (increased house building) but that has not been enough to deal with new high demand, which is far higher than before 1997, with much of that difference due to an extra 200,000 people a year coming in to the UK, This is a major factor and should be acknowledged. Yes there has been high house price inflation, especially after 1997, all partly due to low interest rates, environmental protection laws, plus local areas resisting rising congestion. Yes, agree, lack of social (council) housing - the discounted sale of council houses to tenants worked well for many but the effect of that has dissipated and new build social housing has been inadequate From 2004 to 2021 the foreign born population in the UK increased by 4.2 million. In that same time period over 2 million new housing units were built in the uk. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ From 2003 to 2019 over 2 million housing units were built https://www.statista.com/statistics/746101/completion-of-new-dwellings-uk/ So how is this rise in housing prices due to the increase in foreign residents in the UK?

That you use phrases like "so many" in what should be a numbers based discussion demonstrates how little command you have of the basics of the issue. Without knowing the distribution of the vaccination by age and health status among the general population, it is impossible to draw the conclusions that you have done. Well, impossible to draw valid inclusions. You seem to have a gift for drawing the other kind.

What about the yellow cards? What does the British Health system have to do with this? Sinovac and Sinopharm weren't used in the UK. And even if they were, yellow cards are useless for determining effectiveness.

And how will a poll answer that. question? You might just try asking them?

see answer above

Given that the younger the cohort is, the more likely they are to be unvaccinated, it's more than likely you are just wishing to be young. You really don't have a clue about how statistics work, do you?

So why should we care about whether or not those living in the UK and post here tend to have a different opinion from those living outside the UK?

See my reply above.

Maybe you should read the forum rules about editing quotes to change their meaning. Here's the whole quote again "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data" Clearly they are addressing the present situation and are retiring data that has outlived its usefulness. As for your assertions other assertions. Without knowing, among other things, the breakdown of vaccination rates in the total population by age, your assertions are worthless.

Maybe you should have taken a glance at page 1 of that report: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data" https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221217.pdf

You are making a common mistake in your analysis. It's not about who wins, it's about accuracy. How close did the polls come to getting it the numbers right. As an example: Which is a better poll? One that predicts Mr. A will win by 20 points but he wins by 2 or one that predicts he loses by 2 but he wins by 2? The polls showing remain were off but not by such a huge margin as is currently the case. It's extremely unlikely that a long series of polls that show such a huge gap now as there is between pro and anti Brexit opinion are going to be so extremely wrong.

The polls fluctuated before the election and they were close. https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/

In the meantime, in the real world...

In countries where parents hate their kids?

Not so hard. There were plenty of studies done when the Chinese vaccines were being widely used in countries outside China. It was effective against transmission and against hospitalization and death. Just not as effective as the mRNA vaccines or the Astra-Zeneca vaccine.

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

Well, you previously claimed that the inflation situation in the USA was just as bad as in the UK. Which was false.

It took several engagements for you to disgorge that information. Why the wait?

Just another attempt to make things personal. You gave the information. If there something there to rebut, that's what he should do.

Any second thoughts you'd care to share with us?

So, apparently, it's not the words you use that count, but what you meant. I guess I'm going to have to engage the services of a telepathist to get at the meaning of what you write.

Links were given already as HappyExpat pointed out. If you have a problem with the validity of the links, you can either explain what in those articles is questionable or report those links to the mods. The same mods who made the rule that links should be supplied to back up assertions. But if you can't manage to do either, what that means is that you've got nothing.

I bought a big zebra pot with a thick bottom at MAKRO.

Here are a couple: Partisan Gerrymandering Has Benefited the GOP, Analysis Shows An Associated Press analysis found four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones, indicating that gerrymandering has benefited the GOP. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-gop-analysis-shows-n776436 GOP gerrymandering creates uphill fight for Dems in the House Republican strategists spent years developing a plan to take advantage of the 2010 census, first by winning state legislatures and then redrawing House districts to tilt the playing field in their favor. Their success was unprecedented. In states like Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina, Republicans were able to shape congressional maps to pack as many Democratic voters as possible into the fewest House districts. The practice is called gerrymandering, and it left fertile ground elsewhere in each state to spread Republican voters among more districts, increasing the GOP’s chances of winning more seats. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house

You claimed that the increase was due to the pandemic even though usage of food banks had been increasing since 2008 every year. The only way that claim of yours makes any sense is if you meant that food bank usage would either have held steady or declined had covid not occurred. So why would the trend have reversed?