Don't be surprised to see another serious push towards Kiev, probably beginning from Belarus again. Stretching Ukraine's troops as widely and as thinly as possible is very likely one of the aims of the mobilization.
What I struggle with a lot is why the west continues to be bullied by Russia. Western governments have every right to stabilize a country at the request of that countries legitimate government, but because it is against Russia, the countries are very loathe to do so and in the mean time 10s of 1000s are dying. By enforcing a no fly zone, by attacking areas of opposition troops (especially because the sham referendums) they had every opportunity to push Russia completely out of the country and make Russia need to reassess the situation, it would have also sent a strong message to any other countries considering the same. We only need to look back to Kuwait and the swift response there, because of course Iraq is not a nuclear equipped superpower so the decision was easy.
Anyway on a slightly different now, I have done a translation of an excerpt from a memoir written by a Russian soldier who has since defected to France and I think his book is published or being published.
But I thought it is interesting to share, it shows some Russian's really do wonder why they are there, unfortunately asking these questions for most Russian's really is the same as asking if your own parents or children are evil, you simply cannot process this, there must be a better answer.
My translation is a mix of my own and Google's, my Russian is not fantastic and because of how they phrase things, it needed to be paraphrased a little, but the general gist is correct.
Quote from: ZOV - Pavel Filatyev
If we turn to sterotypes then the answer will be that I am a military man, a paratrooper, I am obliged to follow orders and do not have the right to chicken out and not go to war when it starts; I am obliged to serve for the good of my country and to protect the people of Russia. But then common sense begins to argue and ask questions.
"Did Ukraine threaten Russia?"
Everyone says that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but do we attack every country that wants to join NATO? Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland are already in NATO. Finland is joining NATO now. Our plane was shot down over TUrkey not long ago, but we quickly forgot this, we have a dispute with Japan about the Kuril Islands. Hell the US borders us to the East. But all this for some reason is not a pretext for starting a war. We're not attacking them, or is that just for now?
It turns out that it is not the reason.
"If we had not attacked Ukraine, would they have attacked us?"
Many echo the TV, saying that we launched a preemptive strike, but how can you believe that Ukraine would have attacked Russia, Crimea, if the armed forces of Ukraine could not hold their own borders? They wage this war on the defensive, suffering huge losses. Everyone knows that defensive warfare is easier than attacking. How could this country (Ukraine), which can hardly defend itself, slowly losing its territories, attack? And would it not be easier for our army to strengthen the borders and defenses around Ukraine and, in the even of an attack, meet the enemy on the defensive, break their offensive capabilities and go on the counterattack? Indeed, in this case, our losses would have been much less, and the world community would not be able to accuse Russia of aggression and "condemn" our country as an occupier and invader. It turns out that the Ukraine was going to attack Russia was also a lie?
"Was Ukraine overrun by Nazism and did they infringe on the Russian population (of Ukraine)?"
I talked with people who were in Ukraine before the war, and, oddly enough, no one was able to remember a specific case where someone was infringed upon or offended them for having a Russian surname or for not being able to speak Ukrainian. And some isolated cases of domestic conflicts on ethnic grounds can be found in every country in the world.
"Did we attack to save the DNR and LNR?"
What is the DNR and LNR? Indeed, in fact and legality, these are two regions that were part of Ukraine and then rebelled and decided to become independent. Isn't this the same as if Karelia wanted to join Finland, Smolensk region to Lithuania, Rostov region to Ukraine, Yakutia to USA or Khabarovsk to China, isn't this the same? Why are we defending the LDNR? Did it make the ordinary people in the Donbas feel better? After all, in the Russian Federation we would not have tolerated this, just as we didn't give Chechnya indedependence, paying for it with thousands of lives. Why did we arrange the same without neighbours? But at the same time, the leaders of the LPR and DPR, despite the support of the Russian government were unable to provide their residence with social security and safety, which is why people fled en masse to Russia, Crimea and Ukraine. In conversation with people who fled the war in Donetsk and Luhansk, I did not hear about the cases of Nazism that are shouted about from our media. But all as one spoke about the fact that they fled from the war and that they just want to live and work in peace. If we tried in every possible way to help the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, then why didn't we just limit ourselves to providing Russia passports to everyone? We have plenty of empty land that no human hands have touched, please let them come, live and work with us. Why do we need the territory of a foreign state? What for? Are we short on land? People really believe that all those who wanted to live in Russia have not yet received Russian passports and moved to us?
This channel is just a 'fun' Russian youtube channel, it has a lot of street talk on it. The video I have linked is from a regional area and is asking people how they feel about mobilization. Now looking at the channel they often ask quite controversial questions and it is suprising that they have not been locked up, but what is quite depressing is the responses at times. Sometimes it is uplifting to see that not everyone buys into the propaganda machine, but it is quite clear many do, especially the older generation, but not exclusively.
Of course the west lies as well and also makes mistakes in their analysis of Russia and it's people, I think this is largely because they don't fully understand the Russian psyche in a lot of situations. Remember Russian people throughout all of their history have never actually been free and made definitive choices on their future. The one exception 'may' have been the election of Yeltsin, but generally speaking things have been either openly under the leaders control (Russian Empire and USSR) or the leaders have tried to pretend Russian's had a choice with recent elections, but of course all negative press is under constant attack and lives are in danger, or the opposition is simply arrested on charges and locked away, thereby forbidding them from running again in an election.
But anyway it is a pretty good channel, it is one of many that I watch when i have a few moments and just looking for something to do.
Really really long post here, but because I have a number of close friends in Russia, I can't really post too much publicly in case it in some way it impacts them, but well there is far less chance something here gets read as opposed to on Facebook/Twitter etc.
It doesn't matter whether Putin is deathly ill or not (I don't personally believe that he is), what matters is the fact that if he loses this war outright, he is ousted, exiled, jailed or murdered ('dies peacefully in his sleep').
Someone mentioned that he wants to be remembered like Stalin and this is pretty accurate, or even more so like Peter, Catherine or Vladimir the "Greats". Russia/Ukraine has a long and complicated history, but this history only serves his purpose to be remembered forever. Obviously Kiev was the jewel in the crown of the Kievan Rus for a good few hundred years, but the ruling family were not actually local originally in any case. Kievan Rus was broken in many principalities, Moscow being a minor one amongst them. But the ruling class of Moscow did not represent the general population of Kiev and the areas now known as Ukraine. It does however play hard at the heart of Russians who truly believe Ukraine is "Russian" land and always has been. Winning this territory back for Mother Russia would be wildly popular with the Russian population.
In regards to mobilization, some things that it is not, that the west was buying - It is not only 300,000 people - It is not only reservists - It is not excluding people deemed 'unfit' for work.. As an example of this, I know of a man in his 40s with 2 young children to care for that presented a certificate that should have excluded him when he was drafted. The response of the recruited was "Do you think I give a f**k about your certificate?" - They will not spend 3-5 months training to be battle ready for the war, they are mostly cannon fodder. - Most Russians called up will go and fight in Ukraine, they won't desert.
Their method of rounding up is quite comprehensive, with military surrounding all exits to a town, then the recruiters going in and basically rounding up as many men as they can. All business are being asked to supply a list of all males that work for them and their suitability to perform in the war.
As mentioned, most Russians will NOT desert. They are unhappy to be called up, but see it as a duty they must fulfill if called upon, or see it as a hopeless situation to try and desert. Remember, despite Russia not having a death penalty, it has been made clear to many in the armed forces that they will be shot if they desert or if they retreat without orders.
As for Putin and the nuclear option, well does anyone have the slightest doubt that Hitler would have used a Nuclear weapon, even knowing it would cause a nuclear war that killed everyone? In Putin's eyes, I have little doubt he is seriously considering using a nuclear weapon and even starting a full blown nuclear war, if he can't have what he wants. For him it is seriously a consideration as an option when put up against the option of withdrawing his forces from Ukraine and being seen as weak in the eyes of the Russian public.
Whilst support for the war in Russia is nowhere near the 90%+ levels that a vote would suggest it is, the number is still very high (above 60% for sure and likely above 70%). A lot of Russian people believe the internet is full of misinformation and propaganda from the west aimed at bringing Mighty Russia to it's knees, to subjugate the country through misinformation and dissent. They truly believe what they hear on state broadcast television is much more accurate than what they can get on the internet, it is a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" that large swathes of the country suffer from.
As for regime change ONLY Russians will decide if there will be regime change. There is a very very slight chance the populace breaks out into a revolution, but this is minuscule. The only realistic chance of regime change is if the elite decide on it, but even this is extremely difficult. If you are suspected, you will die through committing suicide from a hospital/apartment/hotel window. The last thing of course, is that Putin is not the most extreme person within the Russian elite. History shows us extreme people often rise to the very top, because others are so fearful of repercussions if they oppose them, so there is a quite reasonable chance that if Putin was ousted/died etc, that a more extreme person could come in and lead the country. The very hated ex president/prime minister is one example of someone who has been strongly advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, this could be to try and fix his public appeal as he is reviled in Russia, but it might just be that he is also a lunatic and would come in and press buttons to get the job done.
Long time no speak, but this topic is of a fair bit of interest to me as it is a bit of a hobby of mine.
I have done a number of people's DNA for them and done a lot of research. The ethnicity side is literally just a "fun" thing, it is basically irrelevant, but the actual DNA matching can have some quite amazing results, depending on how far back you go and how much time and effort you put into it.
I was able to find my grandfather on my father's side through a connection with a 3rd cousin once removed on Ancestry and a second cousin twice removed on MyHeritage, well that an a lot of detective work, but it was quite cool, to eventually get to know the history of this side of the family, to provide my mum with photos as and to finally confirm the connection through asking someone on my grandfather's side of the family to take a test. But I have so far helped find missing dad's, cousins, sisters etc, so it can be quite rewarding in helping people connect.
My own the journey was crazy, my father's side in particular were connections with DNA (and public records) back to the 4th President of the USA ( James Madison), but also to a number of families who had written family history books, which once I came across these were really amazing. The oldest public record I could find was a connection to a family member living in Norwich in the UK in the 900s, but it is quite difficult around this era, because really public records are limited to landowners mainly, but honestly all of that was just the tip of the iceberg.
Also if researching your Irish heritage it can be particularly difficult because a lot of public records were burnt, but what you can do when you believe you have matches is actually contact specific parishes in the regions and ask them to confirm records.. So let's say your 5x Great Grandparents traveled to Australia (let's say Port Fairy as that was a common destination for Irish immigrants) in 1850 or so, they will appear on birth certificates for their children (born from 1853) as well as their death certificates, but you will need to check their parish (usually death certificate is a really good place for this) to get the parish they were from in Ireland to get more details.
Anyway that is already so much info, but overall I would strongly suggest that it is worth getting your dna done (I suggest Ancestry purely because a number of sites .. my heritage/gedmatch/familydna etc) allow you to upload your ancestry DNA file to their database for matches, but ancestry doesn't give you the same option.
It can be a lot of fun, but also time consuming and you have to be prepared to know you could be shocked by your results if you start digging.
There are great communities out there to help as well. I done most of my research with English, Irish, USA, Victoria and Tasmanian records, with just a little overlap into NSW and Germany, by far the easiest records I found to source were from Victoria and Tasmania.
Anyway hope all is well, time for me to pop away again
Absolutely the worst debate I have ever seen. Well it was not a debate, it was unable to be moderated at all. Trump was a disgrace and I had no issue with Biden calling him a moron or an idiot and telling him to shutup, as Trump just comes over the top over and over again with irrelevant points. He has no regard for the integrity of the debate process at all It does not matter as his supporter base will remain charged and consider it a strong victory, those staunchly against him will continue to be. With those undecided, they will have to chose between a fairly ordinary, but not terrible Biden and an ridiculous Trump. I don't know that either candidate won many nett votes tonight
Thing is, you still have to assume that that is the case to be correct. If you don't assume, you end up with the exact behaviour the government has shown when choosing to implement things, and why we were both late to apply stage 3, and also applied stage 4 even though the indicators would likely have shown what you did and that it wasn't necessarily required.
What I keep hanging my hat on, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No one stuffs up on purpose, and that irrespective of what we all think, the lock downs are not a draconian measure solely implemented to cause everyone distress and get them into a communist regime. They are there to try and simply pull numbers down. Until the government proves that's not the case, then we have no other real choice but to share that noble aim.
The first paragraph here I agree with, I reasonably confident that stage 4 could have been avoided if stage 3 was implemented in a timely manner (and in fact stage 2).
The 2nd, well I agree with this, that the government's only real aim is to get over this nightmare, but I also think it is trying to cover tracks also and because of the poor decisions and responses made during this 2nd wave, the fallout is that Victorian's are not only paying for it with their health (specifically with covid infections), but also with their livelihoods due to the duration of the lockdown.
If the government was more on top of this virus throughout the course of this wave, it is hard to not draw a conclusion that they really have little idea of appropriate levels of sanctions. I feel like they were slow to react, their modelling was poor all along and continues to have issues now and as you have mentioned, I also think this government reacts in the moment. How this long in, the government does not seem to have robust contingencies already built in that allow it to make decisions immediately upon triggers being met is beyond me. I as staggered that Dan said he was up late Saturday night finalizing Sunday's announcement. That didn't show me how "hard he is working" (though I am very sure he is), it showed me they don't have a great grasp on this.
Of course the numbers have come down and will continue to and this strategy does work, but currently it is a one trick pony.
Anyway, hopefully this nightmare is over soon for all and there is (as the newest addition to English language) Covid Normal soon.
Long time. I largely agree with a lot of what you've written. Can I ask why you have opted for 7 or 10 days vs 14?
Its hard to disagree with what you've written. I think we ran out of the first lockdown too fast and paid for it. We eased 3 times in 3 weeks with 7 days as the target, and it went backwards.
You asked me this a while ago, I will share something I posted on my facebook page It is pretty long-winded (about the norm for me ) and it is just an example of how the longer average timelines mean it takes longer to determine your outcomes, but also leaves you behind the curve in relation to making relative decisions (imo)
Why lead time and average days in the stats matter.. So I have banged on an on again about the number of days that are being used for the averaging and the number of days needed to determine if the steps are working (to be sure you are not releasing restrictions to early or tightening them too late). I have been particularly vocal around the 14 days averaging and around the 28 days that was deemed necessary (now reduced to 21 days). I have tried to do up a little graph that shows this. What this particular graph is showing is decisions made, 7 day average loads, 14 day average loads as well as as where we were at 16 days after a decision and 21 days after a decision. I was going to add in 28 days after a decision, but decided to leave that out, because it is quite clearly obvious by the data shown above that 28 days is absolutely not a useful piece of data to respond to a virus such as this. So the first part 7 days vs 14 days. The problem as shown with this data is that using 14 day averages means your data is always behind the curve, it shows it on the ascending and the descending phase, which means it is difficult to make decisions in a timely manner. On the way down, that might mean keeping restrictions for longer than is required, on the ascending phase it will likely mean that by the time your decisions are made, they need to be much stronger and for longer than what was previously required, we know when this virus cuts loose that every day matters. With regards to the 7 day averages, I have stated previously that around 14/15-18 days are required to see if the previous steps have been successful, but this is just to conclusively state this, in reality you can already often see these trends forming over the previous days, but the 7 day average show it around this time. With the 14 day averages as you can see below, 21 is not completely unreasonable, but in reality it should be visible a few days before this. The other thing with these elongated averages as it makes it difficult to determine if previous steps have impacted the spread. Take for example if you use a 14 day average after the stage 3 restrictions with mandatory masks were introduced. There is a leveling at around day 16 and a clear drop at day 20, the problem is that this day 20 is also day 10 after the level for restrictions were imposed, is there enough information to draw a clear conclusion that the masks had a serious impact on the virus? Well you can make a case, using that data, but there are questions. With the 7 day average, we can see a clear turning at around day 13 in this graph and by a few days later (days 15/16) it is conclusive. Of course these cannot be attributed to the level 4 lockdowns, as they were only introduced 3 days before the worm began turning. What is also significant is that whilst it is reasonable to make a case that you can see the impact of the level 4 restrictions (you would have expected more of a leveling out), it is also fair to say that the biggest impact was seen when the level 3 restrictions were put in place, which indicates that it is not unreasonable to at least propose that level 3 restrictions with masks is all that is required to manage the situation in the current environment. Now in any case, 21 days is "acceptable" as a method for monitoring this during the descending phase (clearly 28 days is not), but it does still seem like overkill. People can say, well what is an extra say 3 or 5 or 6 days, well if it is say 5 days now, 5 days the next level and 5 again for the last, it is an extra 2 weeks, so it is still significant, but nothing like the significance of the original dates published. Anyway, I hope the graph is clear, it's sole intention really is to show the impact of the different timelines on decision making.
I agree with you Kruddler and in any case I am not completely for just opening everything up. There are some things that I think are probably a little tighter than they need to be, but getting some people back to work, giving back a little freedom and at the same time keeping a tight line on the virus seems a pretty decent compromise.
I think the 5 number is a bit of an issue and as someone just pointed out to me, it means two parents and their child cannot meet up with 2 other parents and their child for exercise/playing in the park... that does seem quite ridiculous when kids and their parents can all go to the pool.
Also whilst 21 days still seems a bit longer than is actually needed to be able to read the impacts of previous changes (between about 15-18 days is enough), I can at least understand the decision making being based on the numbers, so it is acceptable, whereas the 28 days was absolutely not. I would have also preferred to see something along the lines of the 5km limit replaced with within the same postcode or withing 5km of your home, I think against this would be a little more reasonable.
But overall as I said earlier, I think there is more good than bad in today's new personally
Yeah I agree, it was exactly about that.. Not getting a huge fine because you run out of milk in the middle of the night and want a coffee or smoke etc. This may not seem like a significant change, but removal of the curfew does still bring significant upside.
Not that I agree with the restrictions on allowing a very small number of guests, I would have thought this was a reasonable option, but ... the answer that even with small numbers there is no masks being worn and it can still easily transmit is reasonable.
Overall, I thought today's announcements lacked in a few areas, but it did also deliver in a few areas. I am extremely happy to see the arbitrary date of 4 weeks removed, the answer on the golf course and tennis courts seems pretty average (though golf cannot easily be played in 2 hours (for 9 holes) if a course is busy, which they would be.
More positives than negatives out of today's press conference
Sorry but I hate Sky, but anyway.. But I don't know why Sweden is being compared to NYC and UK in regards to when they leveled out to zero deaths, but certainly if you compare it to say Norway and Finland (I would have thought more appropriate comparisons) they took much longer to level out and their peak deaths were considerably higher.
If Australia had 230,000+ cases and 14,000 deaths, but we didn't have the lockdown, are you actually suggesting this is preferable? I may be misreading you, but if you are suggesting there should not have been a lockdown that is a corresponding response based on population
I watched a bit of it, but it turned me off quite quickly.
I wonder flyboy so you believe that masks have no impact on disease control in general or no impact on the transmission of covid? Also the same goes for lockdowns? Do you think that there have been more deaths from covid compared to other viruses?
See the reality is this guy is picking out statistic that suit his agenda (well this is not so abnormal) and saying here is proof, whether the statistics are all accurate or not. There is a lot of "denier" material out there, much as there is a lot of material to suggest 9/11 was an insider job, man never walked on the moon etc.
The problem is I don't agree with them and I don't have the time or energy to look at each... If I was seeing statistical anomalies that made me question the data. made me question the efficacy of masks and lockdowns, then yes I would be looking for answers in these place and questioning potentially, but everything I am seeing from a statistical point of view suggests the lockdowns, and the stage 3 restrictions with masks before them, are effective. They are reducing numbers at reliably predictable rate. So I don't have a reason for throwing an alternative view in, because the data matches the hypothesis.
I can tell by your posts you read a lot, you research your data and I am not trying to be dismissive, I just have an alternate view and it is not dissimilar if I was a democrat and someone said, you need to watch Fox News, they really have the answers...
But I appreciate you taking the time to post, I did look at for a few minutes
Actually GTC I don't think it would have been appropriate for police to be looking after quarantine. Maybe PSOs would have been ok but if the ADF was offered ?
This whole affair reeks of a massive internal squabble within the government and a subsequent very amateurish cover up.
Not sure I agree about not appropriate. The resources dedicated to maintaining quarantine etc far outweigh the resourcing that would have been required for babysitting. Well unless there is another objection?
But of course what this doesn't speak to, is that of course the police could have also made mistakes and the ADF also.
It was just less likely they would when you compare to untrained security.
Lods you could be right, it is possible they are being singled out, but then the comparisons are interesting.
So Spain and Italy (as an example) we know part of their high original death tolls can be attributed to underestimating the power of this disease to cause the chaos it has, they were hit earliest and I think any country hit in this way was going to suffer a similar fate. The other thing about these countries is that besides sharing land borders with other continental countries, they have high numbers of immigrants coming through unchecked from Africa, which means there is no quarantine for many of these people and if they have the virus it is going through unchecked. Not only is it going through unchecked, but if one person on an overcrowded boat makes it to those lands undetected, then that entire boat will almost certainly be infected also. This creates a situation where each fresh boat has the potential to be another wave starter.
Sweden on the other hand shares a land border with Finland (7 day average 90) and Norway (7 day average 111) whilst maintaining a 7 day average currently of 298. It does share a bridge with Denmark (7 day average 535), which Denmark have restricted entry to from Sweden, but Sweden has to my knowledge left open. Freight traffic is still open both ways. Denmark being a continental (thought Nordic) country of course shares a land border with Germany (7 day average 1780).
The reason for bringing that all up is that with less migration to Scandinavian countries than continental countries, there is less unchecked travel through borders and less chance for the virus to spread. England should have less issues as they have the ability to restrict traffic (as we do), but being a "destination" country there are also more attempts at illegal entry and all the problems that come with that, especially as until mid August they had removed the 14 day quarantine between itself and France (which by the way is self-quarantine). Why the UK didn't go into harder lockdowns I really don't know they left themselves on the precipice of a huge outbreak by sitting in a middle ground and hoped it would die out. It seems quite idiotic when you think about how they brought it down from 5,000 a day to 500 (about our average here at out peak), but started to ease restrictions, in that time is has increased 10 fold.
With regards to a dozen countries having worst death tolls per million than Sweden, this is true.. but it's neighbours are all between 60-100 ranking for deaths per million and sitting 14th (12th if you remove countries of less than 100,000 population) is not really a glowing endorsement.
You are right though, I feel like Sweden is being specifically judged because they made the decision that the financial importance was greater than the importance of life. There is no doubt they could have reduced their death toll by at least 70%, or if human terms at least 4,000 lives were sacrificed in an attempt to let the rest of the country live their lives. When you make a decision like that, you need to come out a clear winner, which Sweden hasn't done and it has resulted to them considering lockdown measures..
The UK has clearly mishandled their crisis, they are a destination country for sure, but they had fair warning, whilst most people who had the virus upon hitting continental Europe will have likely passed the worst of it by the time they setup in the Calais region to try and cross to England, there will be a lot that have picked it up during their travels from the south of Europe up to Calais and I suspect these camps often have large numbers of infections due to the transient nature of the people passing through there. Still, they should have been able to control their case load much better than they have and I don't know why they have not locked down through each county with hard lockdowns and tried to grow from there.
So yes continental countries are suffering worse than Sweden, but it is still suffering worse than it to land border neighbours.
To be honest though, I would not want to be in any European country right now. Even Austria who, in my opinion, handled the first wave better than pretty well any other European country (along with maybe Norway) is suffering a lot at the moment. It is not surprising, it is a landlocked country with 8 borders and a number of those countries are exploding. Their deaths per million despite this are 87 (ranked 70th).
The fairer comparison is to compare Sweden with it's Nordic neighbours. On this comparison, it has endured a shocking death toll and a shocking case rate (and the unknown long term effects of that). It has seen a big jump recently in cases and it doesn't have herd immunity. It needs 60-70% of the population to have herd immunity, if the virus does not mutate over the next year or so and outsmart the antibodies, or if the antibodies don't begin to disappear (which there is some evidence it does).
To have herd immunity it would require infections to be at least 8x higher than they have been, which of course is possible as we know that the true number is not really reflected in the positive test number, but the new rise in infections suggest that herd immunity has clearly not been achieved.
Now they are talking lockdowns, I would suggest losing close to 6,000 lives based purely on the strategy you undertook could be declared a disaster
Country
Cases
Deaths
Population
Cases Per Mill
Deaths Per Mill
Tests Per Mill
Norway
13,545
270
5,431,254
2,494
50
186,167
Finland
9,577
343
5,542,777
1,728
62
173,227
Sweden
90,923
5,880
10,114,184
8,990
581
151,533
Denmark
25,594
647
5,797,058
4,415
112
622,430
Iceland
2,561
10
341,767
7,493
29
786,609
Comparison
Australia
27,015
870
25,569,269
1,057
34
293,979
Ans of course we should have had MUCH less, 50-70% less at least You were 17x more likely to die from this virus if you were in Sweden, than if you were in Australia
Yeah Dan confirmed that. Btw his handling of Mikakos... I would suggest if she has any dirt at all on Dan, there is a chance this comes back to bite his arse. Because he treated her with complete disdain. Now okay, she seems to have screwed up royally and I have no issue with her resigning and it seems absolutely correct on the surface, but... Dan could not wash his hands of her any quicker if he tried. Amazing to see.
) and it is just an example of how the longer average timelines mean it takes longer to determine your outcomes, but also leaves you behind the curve in relation to making relative decisions (imo)
?