Cameroni

All the Ukrainians have demonstrated is that like other nations in history before them, who were hopelessly outgunned and facing a numerically vastly superior military, Ukrainians too are happy to take the war to civilians. We have seen this many times before in history. A nation facing an overwhelming numerically superior army decides out of desperation to take the war to the enemy's civilians. There is no glory in injuring children, killing civilians and making civilians homeless. Militarily Ukraine's little incursion into Kursk with 1000 troops is the first sign that Ukraine realizes that military defeat is inevitable. This was pure desperation There have been many minor terrorist raids into Russia by Ukraine before. It is nothing new that Ukrainians do this. But to send 1000 troops into civilians areas in Russia, now increased to around 10,000 troops, is basicallly sacrificing your soldiers idiotically. It's not just military experts who are calling this desperate Ukrainian attempt to entice Russia to bind reserves in the Kursk region and to divert forces from the Donbass militarily useless. Even Ukrainian analysts and Ukrainian troops on the ground see the move as the hopeless operation it clearly is: "But to some Ukrainian servicemen, the attack is nothing but a “distraction” designed to cheer up the public. “Things in the east are pretty bad, and this raid will for a while blind everyone at home – ‘Look, how ballsy we are. We’re kicking a** on their turf,’” Taras, a serviceman strolling in central Kyiv while on a break from the eastern front lines, told Al Jazeera. He withheld his last name and location of his unit in accordance with military regulations." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/8/whats-behind-ukraines-surprise-incursion-into-russias-kursk-region As this Ukrainian soldier realises "things in the east are pretty bad" for Ukraine. And this raid in Kursk is only going to make things worse for Ukraine, because: 1) Ukrainian troops are, according to Russian reports, firing on civilian houses indiscriminately, waging a terrorist war and killing civilians and injuring children. Therefore Russia will intensify its own war on civilians, which can be made far worse. 2) The Ukrainian troops, by all reports about 10000 now, stand abolutely no chance in Russia, against a numerically vastly superior Russian army, and first reports now are already indicating that the advance has been stopped. 3) More volunteers in Russia have now signed up to defend the motherland, counter terror operations are already under way, and we all know what happens to those who invade Russia. In addition battle experienced troops from low priority areas in Ukraine have already been redeployed to Kursk. Makhnovka has already been retaken by Russia, and as Russia keeps sending brigades to Kursk it is clear that the Ukrainian troops have no chance whatsoever to continue the incursion or hold territory long term. In fact Ukrainian troops now are hiding and moving around to avoid combat with Russian forces, in line with the terrorist/guerilla nature of this incursion. Ukraine was basically heading for defeat on the actual fronts, so they threw a handful of troops onto Kursk to unleash terrorist war on cvilians and then pumped more troops in once they saw Russia was naked there. The hope was that Putin would divert major troops from the actual front to Kursk. But he is not doing that. Putin has not even declared a state of war, which he could do to impose martal law, but he hasn't. He has only declared a counter terrorism operation, which shows that Putin is not overly concerned in a military sense. Even gas supplies to Europe through Kursk are not affected, it has been confirmed. Most likely Zelensky has accepted a negotiated settlement is inevitably going to happen ahead of the US election, and wanted to put Ukraine in a better position for negotiation, but once his troops are kicked out of Kursk, as they will be, that notion too will fail.

How lucky we are to live in Thailand, because you can walk into a restaurant where they make their noodles fresh. Try finding a restaurant in Italy where they make their noodles fresh, almost impossible unless you go to 5 star places.

It's not just that, but they seem to want to use these terrible crimes set in social media posts, to viciously attack a person because politically they don't agree with them. It's pretty sad.

It is a bit rich, after the claims you have made, to think you know what is right or wrong, when you don't appear to have even the semblance of a clue of what happened. You seriously persist in going on how restaurant businesses are to blame themselves when they failed in the pandemic? And how do you suggest businesses like restaurants are supposed to make profits in a situation when the government deprives everyone of their liberty and stops them from going out of the house? How are e-commerce operators mean to keep their business going when container prices went up by 1000% during the pandemic? You do not appear to have even the slightest clue of what happened during this time. Restaurants are to blame. Sure. Noooo! There is somebody else to blame! And those people were all the politcians, and all the hysterics who supported them shutting down the entire country for extended periods. Those are the people to blame. Not small business owners, who had no chance without customers. Or when container shipping went up 1000% in price. Even a 12 year old can understand that. Sweden's policy did not "fail". Sweden had among the LOWEST excess deaths of any OECD nation, considerably lower than the UK, US, Italy, Spain and France. Sweden's policy was a spectacular success, they resisted death threats and pressure by others and stuck to their guns and trusted individuals to make their own choices. And they were vindicated and their results were better than most other nations. Your claims are false. And how. One of the largest factors in inflation were wage increases? WHAT??????? Have you followed the news at all? Pandemic, Ukraine war and rising energy prices as a result of idiotic western politicians curtailing Russian oil and gas imports, this did not cause inflation then? I mean, seriously. What you are spouting is just beyond the pale. The governments did their best? It was their job to evaluate if the Cassandra cries by people like Neil Ferguson should be heeded and if lockdowns would be worth it or not, and they failed miserably to do their job. They put in place lockdowns that ruined people and caused massive problems for the economies of the world, which we still, today, all have to shoulder. They kept the nation up and running? They shut the nation down. If we are still up and running, it was DESPITE politicians. Not because of them. And these problems were because of people like you, who want security at all cost and beg government to provide it, no matter what the cost to anyone else. Because you do not understand the implications. You can read them here: "Most despotisms come into being not because a despot has seized power, but because people willingly surrender their freedoms in return for security. Until March 2020, it was unthinkable that liberal democracies should confine healthy people in their homes indefinitely, with limited exceptions at the discretion of government ministers. It was unthinkable that a whole population should be subject to criminal penalties for associating with other human beings and answerable to the police for all the ordinary activities of daily life. When in early February 2020, the European Centre for Disease Control published the pandemic plans of all 28 then members of the EU, inc. the UK, not one of these plans envisaged a general lockdown. Not one. The two principal plans were those prepared by the UK Department of Health and the Robert Koch Institute, the official epidemiological institute of Germany. They came to remarkably similar conclusions. The great object should be to enable ordinary life to continue as far as possible. The two main lessons were, first, to avoid indiscriminate measures and concentrate state interventions on the vulnerable categories; and, secondly, to treat people as grown-ups, go with the grain of human nature and avoid coercion. The published minutes of the committee of scientists advising the UK government show that their advice was on the same lines right up to the announcement of the first lockdown. In the UK, the man mainly responsible for persuading the government to impose a lockdown was Professor Neil Ferguson, an epidemiological modeler based at Imperial College London. His work was influential both in the UK and elsewhere. In a press interview in February 2021, Professor Neil Ferguson explained what changed. It was the lockdown in China. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.” It is worth pausing to reflect on what this means. It means that because a lockdown of the entire population appeared to work in a country which was notoriously indifferent to individual rights and traditionally treats human beings as mere instruments of state policy, they could “get away with” doing the same thing here. Entirely absent from Professor Ferguson’s analysis was any conception of the principled reasons why it had hitherto been unthinkable for western countries to do such a thing. It was unthinkable because it was based on a conception of the state’s relationship with its citizens which was morally repellent even if it worked." https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/institute-news/lord-sumption-a-state-of-fear This article is about you, Patong. And what you don't understand, apart from the fact that all your claims are false and that it is you providing the false information, is that there are limits to what government can do. And we saw that in the pandemic. They will never be able to keep you safe. Look at the global death toll of 7 million souls, do you think it is better than most flu pandemics before, when there was no lockdown? No, it is not. Your total safety, and the competence of your politicians are an illusion. But none so blind than those who cannot see. And the worst part of all this is, that this surrender to government despotism is here to stay, because governments never give up the powers they once acquire. And the next pandemic will come. And when, again, the politicians incarcerate everyone and fine people for associating with each other, achieving nothing, you can thank people like Patong for entering into the bargain of giving up civil liberties for illusory security. Which will not be provided.

Lord Sumption: "The way that that this one-size-fits-all approach has been justified adds to its totalitarian flavour. One argument which we heard, at least in the UK, was that uniform rules applied to people with different levels of vulnerability are necessary for the sake of social solidarity. There are two kinds of solidarity. One is the solidarity of mutual support. But this was a different kind of solidarity. It was the solidarity of intolerant conformism. It is irrational to treat every one the same, when the impact of the problem upon them is very different. The other argument that we heard was that it would be too difficult to enforce rules that differentiated between different people according to their degrees of vulnerability. In other words, the rules were couched in indiscriminate terms to make life easier for the police. When convenience of social control becomes itself an object of public policy, we are adopting part of the mentality of totalitarianism." https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/institute-news/lord-sumption-a-state-of-fear

Sorry, but this is intolerable bs. What happened was the wholesale incarceration of people, dying elderly people deprived of seeing their relatives before they die, the greatest deprivation of liberty we have seen in our lifetime. And when businesses failed they failed because of the totally overdone and unnecessay lockdowns which prevented people going out at all. No matter how good, how profitable a business was, without customers it was doomed to fail because of the decisions of our politicians. Which again, were completely unnecessary as the results in Sweden showed, where they did not impose the same lockdowns but came out far better than the UK, US, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. Wages are catching up? Not even in your dreams, when you factor in inflation. If we are going back to a semblance of normality now it is DESPITE the criminal negligence of our politicians and not because of it.

Oh I'm not saying I'm beautiful, I'm saying when I picture it with a hot young girl it's a beautiful image. Sadly, she's on Netflix and tik tok all day while I slave away in the salt mines.

Same here when I think of you doing it. When I think of doing it it is a beautful exerience though.

You my friend, have entered the fantasy of the soul...otherwise known as ...."love"....just be careful. And remember...it is only a fantasy.

Lacessit will be available when she's 40.

You gotta laugh.

French women? Because Vincent Cassel, the french actor, married his 21 year old gf. And Alain Delon was not one to go for older women.

If you seriously believe that Musk thought we're all going to be deported to the Falklands, then you probably believe Father Christmas lives in Greenland. Some people can get humor. Other's can't. That was not "disinfomation". That was a joke.

The problem with that theory is that women, too get older. If you pick a woman your age, when you're 78 what will she look like at that age? And do you still wan to lie next to her then? We just need to recall Brigitte Bardot then and now to mind, or Pamela Anderson then and now. The horror is palpable. Yet if you choose a young girl, your odds in this regard are much improved. And that's just looks. I'm not even talking about grouchiness, laziness, declining desire to please, declining desire for sex, menopause, and all this...

Australia and New Zealand did well. Norway did a bit better. And Sweden did better than Denmark. If you take the OECD' excess death figures as a measure. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/1e53cf80-en/1/3/3/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/1e53cf80-en&_csp_=da51eb48eaaeedf7fcdf3f0f2a953149&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#section-d1e10677-66f043643c

It certainly is, I have the same with rabbit food, 74 baht one day 45 Baht the next .

I hope you pointed out how they charged you too little and scolded them appropriately for this incompetence?

The Guardian, champion of free speech, lamenting that no regulatory or penalty persecution of Musk can get him to be quiet. You gotta laugh at the hipocrisy.

He's not making excuses about any lisp, he's rightfully pointing out that audio and transmission had a technical issue, but it was very sporadic and did not detract from his dulcet tones in the slightest. No lisp, No Tyson, people who listen to the actual recording expecting that will be sorely disappointed.

But you agree the figures for Sweden, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan which Ferguson predicted are completely wrong? Looking at their final death tollls and Ferguson's model, his figures were way off, were they not?

Yes, and I don't agree with it, which is why I didn't post it. You're the one who posted it, not me.

You would have to quantify if that is the case, by how much and if having enforced lockdowns is worth the acillary cost, economic loss, the elderly unable to see their families, etc. Then if having no lockdowns, with populations adopting sensible behavioural modification out of themselves, as Ferguson had already written in 2006 in Nature is the case, would not achieve similar results. Later, when Ferguson was called to give evidence in the inquiry, he was asked "Would enough have been done without enforced lockdowns" and he replied "We will never know". So Ferguson himself said that it is possible that lockdowns were not necessary.

Yes there is. It is on the UK website of the Thai government. Also if you look at the evisa website you will see that tourist visas are also only possibe within a 6 month period.

Pure speculation unsupported by data. In reality we KNOW as a FACT that the population of the UK also out of itself modified its social behaviour in the pandemic. Even Ferguson conceded under questioning that populations act in this way. This was not unique behaviour to Sweden, Denmark or Norway. The UK in absolute numbers, with 30% of single households has far more single households than Sweden, where 50% of households are single but the population figures for the UK and Sweden are different. In absolute numbers the UK has far more single households. Yes, low population density, but Sweden is not just red houses in the country, they have major cities like Stockholm, Malmo, Goteburg too. And again, there is absolutely zero data or evidence that these factors are what caused Sweden's mortality figures to be among the lowest in the pandemic. I don't think you understand the point. The point is that Sweden has excess death rates considerably better than the vast majority of countries who used enforced lockdowns, despite Sweden not using enfoced lockdowns in the same way. This means that populations CAN survive Covid-19 without draconian lockdowns.

I am aware of Ionnidis own flawed figures, this is precisely the point I am making, that reality has far too many variables in order for any academic to produce accurate models. The reason is obvious, the model can only output based on what is put in, and if the facts are not known, or are too complex, they can not be fed into the model. So even very smart people will come out with totally flawed models. We saw this with Neil Ferguson as well. You say his modelling was correct, but actually when it is put to proper scrutiny it was flawed. In this table below one can see how Ferguson's Imperial model overestimated deaths, both with lockdown measures and without. https://www.aier.org/article/the-failure-of-imperial-college-modeling-is-far-worse-than-we-knew/