ants

That's one interpretation. The second is they realised quickly that the Commonwealth were far more gung-ho than the states and willing to accept a much higher level of infection, so it was left in their hands.

Does anyone else reading that name have to make themselves recall "J.D.Vance isn't Jack Vance"?

I also blame Scomo for not taking on the Commonwealth responsibility and setting up dedicated quarantine facilities. Instead we've got this mess of hotel quarantine that was always likely to lead to leaks and escapes.

I find the premise ridiculous. It means Moby Dick is literature, 10000 leagues under the sea cannot be. To kill a mockingbird is literature, but Bareback can't be (ignoring differences in quality). If you ascribed to this theory, it would mean any story set in current times, but moved merely a decade forward with one or two inventions cannot be literature. Arguably anything set historically where god(s) actually answers/responds in any way are also not allowed to be literature either.

I find it funny that one medical procedure is unacceptable, but another is just fine. This wouldn't apply in NZ due to the ACC scheme, but in the UK employment liability is a fault based system. I would imagine that any employer who contributes to their employees getting COVID in any way would be liable under the law to cover the employee for costs. I can imagine the insurance companies must be having kittens over this, and where the courts will draw the line on responsibility regarding COVID. Is an employer who isn't insisting on masks liable? As vaccination goes up, if they allow crowded groups without proof of vaccination? It will be interesting. Of course, part of the issue would be employees proving they got COVID at work. I would have thought that's a far better basis. If COVID only impacted the individual themselves, requiring them to get vaccinated would be a bit dubious. It is because of the knock on effects (of risk of contagion, or hospital resources, of being unable to open up, etc.) that should be the justification for requiring vaccination. To protect others.

A two-stage process's impact revolves entirely around the order. If you had "vote preferred method" then "vote Brexit", it likely fails. As it sounds like your flag one did. If you have "in/out", and then have "we're leaving, which option is best" then the first referendum determines if you move forward, the second only determines then the preferred method. What happened in Australia was as you say how it happened (and I voted yes and would vote vehemently no against other options). That comes back to whether people would want that order.

Sure. But having had the first referendum, and its wording and results, then either a second referendum or plebiscite on the preferred method of Brexit (preferably with white papers on the options) should have been done to confirm what the preference was.

Yay!

Very angry that we're not just pushing AZ for everyone. Yes, it would result in a few deaths. If we applied the risk-avoidance for AZ to driving, virtually nobody would be allowed to drive. In my view its criminal so few of us are still unvaccinated.

I think Labour also has a similar problem to Labour in Australia. And that is that there are bunch of people who are loudly progressive in life, but vote financially at the ballot box. And the socially progressive is mixed up with the economically progressive. There were a host of Sydney suburbs who when the results of the plebiscite on same sex marriage came out were deliriously happy. You would get common statements how this was the best day ever. Many of those suburbs voted for the conservative party that restricted gay rights. Because they might be progressive socially, but not if it would impact their financial position. So you have these groups who are pushing pushing for progressive positions, and you're aligning with, but who don't then actually support you at the ballot box. And in Australia, they could easily vote third party and then conservative without hurting their vote on a two-party basis to send a message. They didn't and don't.

I think the booing showed it does work. I find it quite funny for you to open that long post by talking about bad faith arguments, and then you proceed to make ... bad faith arguments. Or at least portraying both sides' arguments from the perspective of the far right. Whether someone believes the UK is a strong or weak performer doesn't matter. If you believe that economically being in the EU is a leg up, and outside is a handicap, then whether or not you're weak or strong is irrelevant. What matters is you were making yourself weaker than the alternative. Having a view on whether or not the UK was weak or strong was always a furphy of the right to ignore the benefits of being in the EU that would be lost. Another right-wing snap take was that those who were for being part of the EU thought it was perfect. You didn't need to think it was perfect, just that being inside was better. The failure of the Leavers to put good-faith arguments for leaving that made any sense was a significant part of the reason there were doubts about what they were trying to achieve. Of course the referendum was illegitimate, in the way the right-wing wanted to portray it (there were also plenty of reasons why it may have been illegitimate full stop). The referendum established that there was a preference for Brexit. Nothing more. Because of how loosely the referendum was worded. However, the right then proceeded to effectively use the referendum results to disenfranchise anyone who was against Brexit out of the debate on approach, and argue only for their vision of Brexit. Your point above is a great example, stating that there was unity required to create the best outcome. Nobody ever got a say beyond the Torries on what the best outcome was. You describe a soft Brexit as "dreaful", ignoring plenty of British wanted that. Having had the initial referendum, a second should always have occurred to identify what the total UK consensus was on the best style. That remainers didn't want Brexit did not, and should not, disqualify them from having a vote in this and pushing for a soft Brexit. Instead, the Torries refused to take any view but their one, and then blamed anyone who didn't accept that as being disloyal. They effectively disenfranchised a significant part of the UK from the discussion, and even those who voted for Brexit but envisaged a softer version got the shaft. It is entirely reasonable to believe that if the UK electorate had had the choice initially to vote for this Brexit versus Remain, it would have lost. Hence why the referendum was fundamentally illegitimate. Yes, Borris got the bounce. That's because a good chunk of the community were tired of the discussion. Boris could have put a soft or tough Brexit through and he'd initially have got a bounce.

There was a really interesting statistic in Australia back when smoking ads were allowed. There was a period where different brands sponsored the major sports differently across different states. Research into the demographics of smokers showed that young smokers' choice of cigarettes aligned with the advertising in their state. So it absolutely has an effect.

Not an expert, but do we really know if this is true? For example, we know diet has impacted our height in a very short timeframe. Do we know other things which we do now which we didn't do then don't impact us in various ways (such as brain formation)?

Um, what are you guys up to?

On the ring and heart thing, why would it? Traditionally her clan (can't remember their name) shared the ring around the elders. It was the guy who took over who figured out the alternative technique. I think the technique Ali used was specifically designed to do that.