Some of the new batch of Tasks (jgSP_01) are using quite a bit more RAM than the previous Task types- up to 1.2GB. Most are around 1GB or less. But with all the other Tasks sill using 500MB or less, total RAM usage is still very low. And disk usage is no more than in the past.
So both are still a huge amount less than the minimum configuration values.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

hi, got new batch of SAP_ tasks with 2GB computers ^^

like:
sap_h13_l2_h9_l1_h9_l2_rep906_0003_4mer_0007_reordered_0001_v4_relax_SAVE_ALL_OUT_1392427_29_0

Now I'm back at work this month for the first time since Christmas

After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?

No tax-payer paid me a penny (setting aside the fact I'm a tax-payer)

You didn't bother taking the free handouts they're throwing everywhere? Better in your hands than theirs.

CJRS is a benefit received by employers, not employees. How come you don't know that? It's only been going since day one.
I do know about it because as soon as it was made known (in it's final version after several aborted attempts by the Gov't setting it up) it was down to me to ensure it was claimed, while I advised and ensured our self-employed people were able to claim SEISS. Plus Gov't business grants provided via local authorities.
But you should also be aware the constraints imposed on claiming these things. To think it went to everyone shows you don't have any idea of its scope. And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%. And, as I said before, the interest on servicing this debt is lower in cash terms than the interest paid on Gov't debt before the borrowing was undertaken, because of the way it's structured and the rates that apply (and who the interest is paid to - the Gov't pays it to itself).
I'm wary of suggesting this, but perhaps if you tried to discover the facts of the matter it would help prevent you being flat wrong about every single word you've said.
Just an idea.

I can still hear about those who die. Nobody I know has died. Loads of people I know got through it.

Not from people who died. And if you don't know of anyone who died, who would tell you?

You can't be serious. So if your friend died, no mutual friends would bother to tell you?

Not first hand, you can't.
It's self-fulfilling to if you ask people who had less of a problem that they'll say they had less of a problem.

I'm not even sure how you know loads of people who got through it, because not that many people had it.

But according to the government panic, loads of people had it. I know 6 of them.

As many as that! Sounds representative - lol.
6 out of 4.4m who've had it (not forgetting you claim even more than that had it) and none out of 152.5k who died from it (and ONS are sure more than 152.5k died of it)

It's hard to know how you know what I'm understanding seeing as I'm understanding quite a lot more than you.
I mean, it would be quite nice if you knew how to count or do basic arithmetic.
I drive - quite a lot actually. 1 in 40,000 die per year in the UK. I'm pretty careful and take evasive action on every occasion I get in the car. I like to be meticulous about that.

1 in 40,000 is a very small number. If I told you that a certain horse had a 1 in 40,000 chance of winning, you wouldn't put money on it. I never wear a seatbelt and I don't stick to the speed limit.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance, you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.
My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood, but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.
Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

I breath - quite a lot too. 1 in 438 in the UK have died of CV19 in the last year, over and above those who die of the usual reasons.

Actually it's 127,570 out of a population of 66,800,000 = 1 in 523, but never mind, close enough. Both are a fraction of a percent. Do you know 523 people? It's improbable then that you know of anyone who's died of it.

Those are the Gov't figures, not the real ones. The number is given because it's quick, not because it's accurate nor complete (NB: It's not even quick. They're provided as "reported" yesterday, not occurred yesterday).
The measure doesn't conform to the International standard for death reporting for respiratory diseases. Only ONS report them and the latest is 152,491 up to April 23rd plus 121 since then. That's now 1 in 437 of the entire country in addition to those who usually die of non-Covid reasons.
Where I work, we have 36,000+ paying customers per year, so yeah, I probably do see a few more than 437 (or 523) each year. 82 of them will be dead from CV19 since last year, in addition to those who normally die.
82 means we might be speaking to someone about death once or twice a week (because of the line I'm in makes people more likely to come to us if someone has died - probate as well as ordinary insurance reasons), but we're not going to go bust because of it - quite the opposite, in fact.
What did you think your point was?

I do most of my breathing at home, but I make sensible choices when I'm out and about given it's 90x more likely I'd expire than if I was driving.

Not if you drive 90 times more often. It also depends how far you drive and on what roads. And where you were when breathing. Far too many variables to draw the conclusion of 90x.

I have a peculiar tendency to breath wherever I am - it's a habit I've got into.
And I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think I drive more often than I breath, even though I do quite a lot of driving each week.

I've said before, I read what you write and take it on its merits.
I'm afraid to say, in this thread, you seem to have got into bad company who are pumping you full of complete nonsense, resulting in you making a total fool of yourself. Sorry

---

Christ, there's more...

I'd love to see you fly on a bankrupt airline.

I know this might be a bit complicated for you, but bear with me. I'm a lot more likely to use one of the airlines that didn't go bankrupt.
I just organised for my step-daughter to go to Portugal using a non-bankrupt airline and will be doing the same for my niece this week. I know more than I'd like to know about this subject.

And when the same number of people want to fly on a smaller number of airlines...

Events have taken a turn since I was last here. And the outcome is now known. Airlines increase routes and frequency and re-lease from a massive stock of existing capacity. And if that doesn't turn out to be enough, the quickest movers will start new airlines. None of which is a surprise, because that always happens in response to changes in demand.
Or perhaps you think all airports and hotels and seasides were bulldozed in the last year?
I have no idea why you're hysterical about things that haven't happened, nor was there ever any prospect of it happening, while being unmoved by, what's now, millions of people having died starting from day one and the infection rate currently the highest it's ever been around the world.

No-one ever grieved over the loss of a business, bar you.

Go ask the business owners.

Can we call them business owners if they already failed due to their own mismanagement or greed and failure to read their market? I think not.

How is going bankrupt due to government restrictions anything to do with being a rubbish businessman?

Adapting and responding to market conditions and regulation, current and future, is what makes a business a business - and a businessman a businessman.
Failing to do any of that makes you a victim-in-waiting and "a rubbish businessman" as you put it.
If you don't appreciate that, you don't understand anything about the subject.

I don't know if you think I'm exaggerating or being one-eyed, but on my news this morning I hear about another firm increasing their profits 40+% and watched a great little programme last night about firms in Wales doing great things during lockdown

The lockdowns have shifted profits from some sectors to others. So basically chaos. Some companies are losing money and some can't keep up.

Your first sentence is correct. Your conclusion is nonsense. It's not chaos. It's entirely normal - always has been, always will be.

Unless you want us to throw good money after bad and keep something limping along when it's better off dead?

Which is what governments do all the time, propping up banks, General Motors, etc.

There's a difference between structural change and exceptional but temporary conditions. The High Street is structural, but vastly accelerated over the last year, but was coming anyway. Same with the mix of card and cash. Commercial property is similarly structural. The motor industry is a bit of both - it'll continue to exist, but in a vastly different form and that change is probably accelerated, but the industry is re-tooling itself over a longer timescale than the last year and is currently coming out of the last year like a rocket, so doesn't need the support now like it did in the financial crisis.
You're making "a" point. but I literally have no idea what it is. Nor, do I think, do you, which is why your reply trailed off into nothing.

Sorry, no. You only proudly think that about living things - people. Silly me.

And why don't you? Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.
Evolution is something that takes place over an extended period. No evolution is taking place, regarding Covid.
It's a catastrophic event for humans, that only counts if it occurs within 28 days, so we're told.

---

15% of the UK is refusing the vaccine. Don't think I'm unusual in this regard.

Yeah, that's not true, as a cursory check confirms.

It was true according to the articles I read, which were from a few months ago. That it's gone down suggests the government has managed to brainwash more people. I actually read something about councils sending people out to talk to those who refuse "in an effort to find out why they refused". Leave people alone!

It certainly was not true that 15% of the UK was "refusing" to take the vaccine two months ago, at a time when only half the current number had received a first dose for the simple reason they'd never been offered it.
At best that's wishful thinking from people who literally couldn't have had any idea what they were talking about, which is the worst kind of person to be so gullible as to uncritically believe.

The latest stats from NHS England report (pdf)
"As of 25th April, 22,644,679 individuals aged 45 and over have been vaccinated with at least one dose (91.5% of the population aged 45 and over)"
Since when a further 915k 1st doses have been administered.
Bearing in mind too that something like 2.5% in those age groups can't have vaccines administered for clinical reasons, so even the word "refusing" is heavily loaded with disinformation, let alone the %age.

You're using skewed data. You're looking at older people. Older people worry more.

It's simply not possible to claim that the only people who have been offered an opportunity to be vaccinated is skewed data, when those who haven't had it haven't been offered it, except younger people who are clinical extremely vulnerable, clinically vulnerable, carers, care home workers or NHS staff who have been vaccinated on top of those numbers.

And in the weekly data, the figure for those vaccinated aged 45 and over by 2nd May is now 92.3% with 700k more having been given it since, out of the maximum around 97.5%
This alleged refusenik figure from "a few months ago" is looking more daft by the week, and will inevitably continue in that vain, not because they're "brainwashed" as you hysterically describe it, but for the obvious reason of rationality.

That still doesn't make you unusual, it's true, but it does make you abnormal. No need to ask why.

All it means is I don't worry about stuff.

It's not that you worry less. It's that you've exposed yourself to the most ludicrous nutjob propaganda - which is plain because you're regurgitating the worst of it here in exactly the same form that it's promoted - and claiming it to be your own opinion, when it's equally plain that it's only "your opinion" because you're so gullible as not to see through the quite outrageous nonsense of it. As with so much else you offer "your opinion" on.

---

hi, got new batch of SAP_ tasks with 2GB computers ^^

like:
sap_h13_l2_h9_l1_h9_l2_rep906_0003_4mer_0007_reordered_0001_v4_relax_SAVE_ALL_OUT_1392427_29_0

Yes - see the other thread where I try to describe what I've observed. Good news.

---

CJRS is a benefit received by employers, not employees. How come you don't know that? It's only been going since day one.

I never mentioned CJRS. I don't know what country you're in or what you work as.

I do know about it because as soon as it was made known (in it's final version after several aborted attempts by the Gov't setting it up) it was down to me to ensure it was claimed, while I advised and ensured our self-employed people were able to claim SEISS. Plus Gov't business grants provided via local authorities.

You're a tax officer? [Crosses fingers and directs them towards you]

But you should also be aware the constraints imposed on claiming these things. To think it went to everyone shows you don't have any idea of its scope.

The tradesman who lives near me seems to have got round your rules....

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

And, as I said before, the interest on servicing this debt is lower in cash terms than the interest paid on Gov't debt before the borrowing was undertaken, because of the way it's structured and the rates that apply (and who the interest is paid to - the Gov't pays it to itself).

You can't borrow money from yourself.

I'm wary of suggesting this, but perhaps if you tried to discover the facts of the matter it would help prevent you being flat wrong about every single word you've said.
Just an idea.

Why are you wary?

You can't be serious. So if your friend died, no mutual friends would bother to tell you?

Not first hand, you can't.
It's self-fulfilling to if you ask people who had less of a problem that they'll say they had less of a problem.

What on earth are you on about? You claimed I wouldn't get to hear about people I know dying, but only those who survived it. If a friend of a friend died, I'd be told!

I'm not even sure how you know loads of people who got through it, because not that many people had it.

But according to the government panic, loads of people had it. I know 6 of them.

As many as that! Sounds representative - lol.
6 out of 4.4m who've had it (not forgetting you claim even more than that had it) and none out of 152.5k who died from it (and ONS are sure more than 152.5k died of it)

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Actually it's 127,570 out of a population of 66,800,000 = 1 in 523, but never mind, close enough. Both are a fraction of a percent. Do you know 523 people? It's improbable then that you know of anyone who's died of it.

Those are the Gov't figures, not the real ones. The number is given because it's quick, not because it's accurate nor complete (NB: It's not even quick. They're provided as "reported" yesterday, not occurred yesterday).
The measure doesn't conform to the International standard for death reporting for respiratory diseases. Only ONS report them and the latest is 152,491 up to April 23rd plus 121 since then. That's now 1 in 437 of the entire country in addition to those who usually die of non-Covid reasons.

Like I said "never mind, close enough".

Where I work, we have 36,000+ paying customers per year, so yeah, I probably do see a few more than 437 (or 523) each year. 82 of them will be dead from CV19 since last year, in addition to those who normally die.
82 means we might be speaking to someone about death once or twice a week (because of the line I'm in makes people more likely to come to us if someone has died - probate as well as ordinary insurance reasons), but we're not going to go bust because of it - quite the opposite, in fact.
What did you think your point was?

82 out of 36,000, big deal.

I do most of my breathing at home, but I make sensible choices when I'm out and about given it's 90x more likely I'd expire than if I was driving.

Not if you drive 90 times more often. It also depends how far you drive and on what roads. And where you were when breathing. Far too many variables to draw the conclusion of 90x.

I have a peculiar tendency to breath wherever I am - it's a habit I've got into.
And I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think I drive more often than I breath, even though I do quite a lot of driving each week.

You're probably driving for more time per week than you're breathing near strangers.

Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.

He doesn't know jack about evolution, either. It's just a handy tool for him to deploy to justify being a misanthropic headcheese.

CJRS is a benefit received by employers, not employees. How come you don't know that? It's only been going since day one.

I never mentioned CJRS. I don't know what country you're in or what you work as.

It only takes seconds for me to click on your name in this thread and find you're in the same country as me, which you can find by clicking on my name.
Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.
When you said "After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?" you don't have any idea that you're referring to CJRS compensating employers 80% of salary up to 2.5k/month for laying off employees or SEISS for the self-employed (your tradesman mate, presumably) up to the same limit of profits declared in past years. Or the grants offered, or the Business rates cut below a certain limit, or the Gov't backed loans.

I'm wary of suggesting this, but perhaps if you tried to discover the facts of the matter it would help prevent you being flat wrong about every single word you've said.
Just an idea.

Why are you wary?

Because, when you make statements about things, you don't know their name, their scope, their cost, how they've changed over time, their source or their effect on the wider economy. And even more, having read what else you've written in the message I'm responding to, you seem proud of that ignorance to the point of glorying in it. That's why I'm wary - your replies here fully justify that apprehension.

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

Err... because both the 2nd and 3rd "lockdowns" were massively less restrictive that the first one (the 2nd least of all). In the 3rd, my own employer was open throughout, as were many others.
That should've been obvious to everybody, but seeing as you don't seem to have understood the first thing about any of them, I can hardly be surprised you didn't notice this either.

And, as I said before, the interest on servicing this debt is lower in cash terms than the interest paid on Gov't debt before the borrowing was undertaken, because of the way it's structured and the rates that apply (and who the interest is paid to - the Gov't pays it to itself).

You can't borrow money from yourself.

I can't. You can't. Gov'ts that issue their own currency all can and do. The US most of all, the UK not yet sufficiently.
Again, if you don't understand that, no wonder you're confused.
But wait until you hear about how private banks create money out of thin air with nothing backing it at all. A very different thing that's something worth you worrying about.

You can't be serious. So if your friend died, no mutual friends would bother to tell you?

Not first hand, you can't.
It's self-fulfilling to if you ask people who had less of a problem that they'll say they had less of a problem.

What on earth are you on about? You claimed I wouldn't get to hear about people I know dying, but only those who survived it. If a friend of a friend died, I'd be told!

You've forgotten your own point.
I didn't claim you wouldn't get to hear about people you know dying.
You said "it wasn't that bad to get Covid19" because people you know who didn't have it bad said it wasn't bad. Well, obviously, but meaningless.

Unless you also talked to people who either died from it (before they died, obvs) about how bad it was, or people who had it bad enough to be on mechanical ventilation, or who had it bad enough to be hospitalised for it, or who had it badly, or sometimes not so badly, but who could never quite shake off the symptoms in spite of no longer having a live infection, because of the prolonged effect of the damage it did, then you wouldn't have any kind of balanced view of its seriousness. You barely have any examples backing up your point and certainly not a representative amount that allows you to draw any conclusions.

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

I'm sorry you don't have any understanding of the significance of sample size. 6 isn't representative for any purpose,. Neither, if it even needs to be said out loud, is zero.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Extraordinary. No need for me to comment. It stands on its own merits, of which it has none.

Actually it's 127,570 out of a population of 66,800,000 = 1 in 523, but never mind, close enough. Both are a fraction of a percent. Do you know 523 people? It's improbable then that you know of anyone who's died of it.

Those are the Gov't figures, not the real ones. The number is given because it's quick, not because it's accurate nor complete (NB: It's not even quick. They're provided as "reported" yesterday, not occurred yesterday).
The measure doesn't conform to the International standard for death reporting for respiratory diseases. Only ONS report them and the latest is 152,491 up to April 23rd plus 121 since then. That's now 1 in 437 of the entire country in addition to those who usually die of non-Covid reasons.

Like I said "never mind, close enough".

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

Where I work, we have 36,000+ paying customers per year, so yeah, I probably do see a few more than 437 (or 523) each year. 82 of them will be dead from CV19 since last year, in addition to those who normally die.
82 means we might be speaking to someone about death once or twice a week (because of the line I'm in makes people more likely to come to us if someone has died - probate as well as ordinary insurance reasons), but we're not going to go bust because of it - quite the opposite, in fact.
What did you think your point was?

82 out of 36,000, big deal.

Starting off speculating an answer of nobody, 82 is as good as nobody, after claiming that 6 (and zero) is good enough for you to draw conclusions for a 66.8m population.
I work in quite a small business. 82 from 36,000 is <a lot>

I do most of my breathing at home, but I make sensible choices when I'm out and about given it's 90x more likely I'd expire than if I was driving.

Not if you drive 90 times more often. It also depends how far you drive and on what roads. And where you were when breathing. Far too many variables to draw the conclusion of 90x.

I have a peculiar tendency to breath wherever I am - it's a habit I've got into.
And I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think I drive more often than I breath, even though I do quite a lot of driving each week.

You're probably driving for more time per week than you're breathing near strangers.

Your ability to draw conclusions from no information is remarkable for someone who is simultaneously able to dismiss vast amounts of data as unrepresentative.
It wouldn't be possible for me to drive more than I breath if my job was a permanent driver.
As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.
The number of people I'm breathing near is considerable. I get weekly information on that footfall.
Your comment is beyond ridiculous, not least because it's another example of you glorying in your complete and total ignorance of my circumstances, yet that not restraining you drawing conclusions from that ignorance anyway.

I daren't imagine what complete gibberish your next response will bring, but I don't doubt your perpetual lack of self-awareness will mean you'll offer us the benefit of your complete and total misunderstanding of everything anyway.

---

Events have taken a turn since I was last here. And the outcome is now known. Airlines increase routes and frequency and re-lease from a massive stock of existing capacity. And if that doesn't turn out to be enough, the quickest movers will start new airlines. None of which is a surprise, because that always happens in response to changes in demand.
Or perhaps you think all airports and hotels and seasides were bulldozed in the last year?
I have no idea why you're hysterical about things that haven't happened, nor was there ever any prospect of it happening,

So you admit airlines have gone bust and new ones are starting up. And you're ok with this?! Remember, they didn't go bust from being rubbish, they went bust due to government legislation.

while being unmoved by, what's now, millions of people having died starting from day one and the infection rate currently the highest it's ever been around the world.

People die all the time, usually from cancer. About time the government put billions into research perhaps? You see that wouldn't annoy everyone with lockdowns.

Adapting and responding to market conditions and regulation, current and future, is what makes a business a business - and a businessman a businessman.

Not being able to run your business at all for a year is hardly a condition a business would normally have to contend with.

Your first sentence is correct. Your conclusion is nonsense. It's not chaos. It's entirely normal - always has been, always will be.

It's not normal to change things this fast.

There's a difference between structural change and exceptional but temporary conditions. The High Street is structural, but vastly accelerated over the last year, but was coming anyway. Same with the mix of card and cash. Commercial property is similarly structural. The motor industry is a bit of both - it'll continue to exist, but in a vastly different form and that change is probably accelerated, but the industry is re-tooling itself over a longer timescale than the last year and is currently coming out of the last year like a rocket, so doesn't need the support now like it did in the financial crisis.
You're making "a" point. but I literally have no idea what it is. Nor, do I think, do you, which is why your reply trailed off into nothing.

Likewise, I have no idea what you mean in that paragraph. I'll try again. What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.
Evolution is something that takes place over an extended period. No evolution is taking place, regarding Covid.
It's a catastrophic event for humans, that only counts if it occurs within 28 days, so we're told.

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

You're so ignorant that you don't know what is evolution.

---

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

Dumb as a bag of hammers. Dumber, even. What a maroon.

It's notable what you didn't respond to. Tbf I can hardly be surprised

Events have taken a turn since I was last here. And the outcome is now known. Airlines increase routes and frequency and re-lease from a massive stock of existing capacity. And if that doesn't turn out to be enough, the quickest movers will start new airlines. None of which is a surprise, because that always happens in response to changes in demand.
Or perhaps you think all airports and hotels and seasides were bulldozed in the last year?
I have no idea why you're hysterical about things that haven't happened, nor was there ever any prospect of it happening,

So you admit airlines have gone bust and new ones are starting up. And you're ok with this?! Remember, they didn't go bust from being rubbish, they went bust due to government legislation.

I'm now wondering if you have problems with reading, because I haven't even considered whether airlines have gone bust during Gov't restrictions.
So I've just checked what's happened in the UK in recent years.

2017 - Monarch - were rubbish
2019 - FlyBMI - were rubbish. They blamed their collapse on fuel prices and "Brexit uncertainty". As if fuel never had a price before and doesn't apply to everyone and Brexit couldn't be seen coming for years by 2019
2019 - Thomas Cook - were rubbish
2020 5th March - Flybe - were rubbish
All before Gov't restrictions of any type.

Since Gov't restrictions 23 Mar 2020 - none

Please tell me more about how all these zero airlines went bust due to Gov't legislation over the last year.
Or, perhaps I'll return to one of my earlier remarks like "you being flat wrong about every single word you've said" or "I have no idea why you're hysterical about things that haven't happened".
We've discovered we live in the same country. I'm now finding that quite hard to believe, seeing as you don't seem to have noticed anything that did happen will obsessing over things you imagine happened, but actually didn't.

while being unmoved by, what's now, millions of people having died starting from day one and the infection rate currently the highest it's ever been around the world.

People die all the time, usually from cancer. About time the government put billions into research perhaps? You see that wouldn't annoy everyone with lockdowns.

People do die all the time. That's not relevant in any way.
The majority of people die of major organ failure, or cancers, or vascular diseases or old age.
None of these are spread from one person to another, so no public policy on movement will change that. That's why we don't do it.
Infectious diseases are entirely different, particularly ones that are 3x as infectious and 3x more deadly for people who become seriously ill at an abnormally high rate and can result in death within a month for people who wouldn't otherwise die.
Which is what we've consistently seen.

Fortunately, our public health policies aren't determined by sociopaths.
I understand this is particularly upsetting for sociopaths, but no sociopath has died that I'm aware of and it wouldn't bother me very much if they did - on the same basis as the Darwin Awards are judged.

Adapting and responding to market conditions and regulation, current and future, is what makes a business a business - and a businessman a businessman.

Not being able to run your business at all for a year is hardly a condition a business would normally have to contend with.

We've already established well enough that you haven't even got the first clue about any form of business, but as it happens (in my checkered past) I've written part of a policy on business continuation following a catastrophic event. The event may not be common, by its nature, but having an action plan isn't so uncommon.
Not that we've got one at the place I'm at now, I should add, but shortly after the 1st lockdown began last April I brainstormed an action plan on the hoof in a 4hr phone call with the owner that basically reimagined the entire business in the event of any permanent change to trading conditions. Who wouldn't?

Your first sentence is correct. Your conclusion is nonsense. It's not chaos. It's entirely normal - always has been, always will be.

It's not normal to change things this fast.

I have a friend who works in the City of London whose business fundamentally re-tooled itself for online working in a few weeks and have been trading uninterrupted and more profitably ever since. And they're not ever changing back because their entire cost-base has almost evaporated and they're making money hand over fist.
And another friend in Financial Services who switched to working from home with no negative impact at all, except for a massive reduction in costs, and has been taken on full-time rather than on a self-employed basis, so is massively more secure in his work.

So, imagine all you want about disruptions and closures and the sudden effects and some apparent inability to adapt to changed market conditions, but the reality is very different.

There's a difference between structural change and exceptional but temporary conditions. The High Street is structural, but vastly accelerated over the last year, but was coming anyway. Same with the mix of card and cash. Commercial property is similarly structural. The motor industry is a bit of both - it'll continue to exist, but in a vastly different form and that change is probably accelerated, but the industry is re-tooling itself over a longer timescale than the last year and is currently coming out of the last year like a rocket, so doesn't need the support now like it did in the financial crisis.
You're making "a" point. but I literally have no idea what it is. Nor, do I think, do you, which is why your reply trailed off into nothing.

Likewise, I have no idea what you mean in that paragraph. I'll try again. What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?

The only reason you don't understand what I wrote is that you wouldn't understand anything I wrote.
GM was (and remains) a very profitable company. The issue was cashflow, caused largely because the banking collapse meant car loans weren't available to customers in the normal way that cars are bought, and the same banking collapse prevented GM borrowing to see them through a temporary liquidity crisis. The financial market having collapsed, the Gov't stepped in to do the job the banks couldn't, GM sold off a brand or two, closed the less profitable models, paid back all the Gov't loans within a couple of years and continued on their merry way, employing lots of people and paying lots of tax since.

I have literally no idea why you ask this question as it doesn't seem relevant to anything. Our Gov't has also subsidised private companies and employee costs too, up to a certain level, and I read there's £140bn of customer demand waiting for the reopening after our 3rd lockdown now that lockdown successfully achieved its purpose, this time backed up by a successful Public Health operated vaccine rollout.

If you can't see the point, that's your problem rather than anyone else's, given the non-existent alternative. I daren't imagine.

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.
Evolution is something that takes place over an extended period. No evolution is taking place regarding Covid.
It's a catastrophic event for humans, that only counts if it occurs within 28 days, so we're told.

Evolution is the removal of the poor quality genes - of the people that can't fight coronavirus by themselves. It ensures the next generation will be healthier. It's the whole basis of everything organic, unless you're a religious nut.

When you mention "the next generation" here, are you seriously talking in terms of 20yrs more of this? Or many multiples of 20yrs, on the scale of evolution, of continued deaths and of lockdowns? Because I don't think you want either of those - most particularly because it certainly won't be you doing the choosing and I don't think you'll like the option taken.

Though tbf, you'll probably have died of old age (or a car crash) by the time that comes about, so I really wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.
That should be easy. You like to say you don't worry about unlikely things.

---

It certainly was not true that 15% of the UK was "refusing" to take the vaccine two months ago, at a time when only half the current number had received a first dose for the simple reason they'd never been offered it.
At best that's wishful thinking from people who literally couldn't have had any idea what they were talking about, which is the worst kind of person to be so gullible as to uncritically believe.

Here you go

It's simply not possible to claim that the only people who have been offered an opportunity to be vaccinated is skewed data, when those who haven't had it haven't been offered it

Contrarywise, I'm going by whether people say they will want it, once it's offered to them. You're the one only looking at data for older people.

It's not that you worry less. It's that you've exposed yourself to the most ludicrous nutjob propaganda - which is plain because you're regurgitating the worst of it here in exactly the same form that it's promoted - and claiming it to be your own opinion, when it's equally plain that it's only "your opinion" because you're so gullible as not to see through the quite outrageous nonsense of it. As with so much else you offer "your opinion" on.

No, I refuse to be worried about it because I've seen the small number of people dying from it. I only worry about the likely.

Do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution has got nothing to do with anything here.

He doesn't know jack about evolution, either. It's just a handy tool for him to deploy to justify being a misanthropic headcheese.

I know what evolution is, unlike you who hasn't bothered refuting my argument.

I know what evolution is, unlike you who hasn't bothered refuting my argument.

Nah. When you are shown to be factually incorrect about something, you either change the subject, or just drop it. The latter action is a primary reason for the extinction of your convo with Sid. Unfortunate, because watching someone like you getting so thoroughly cornholed was both hilarious and deeply satisfying.

Peter Hucker posted:
"What's the point in propping up ONE car company (GM in the USA)?"

The reason the US Government propped up GM in the USA is very simply because GM was the single source supplier of ALOT of US Military hardware that if they farmed out to other companies would dramatically increase the likelihood of being stolen. IF the USA let GM go out of business then the US Military would also rapidly become a 2nd or even 3rd rate military in both defense and offense. GM took the loans with the understanding that they would turn their business around within a very short period of time or they would start losing all those military contracts and the billions of dollars that comes with them. YES those time lines were spelled out but no they were not made public then or so far as of today. Rumors persist that the US Government had already started lining up people to start those new businesses but that didn't happen right then due to GM doing what they said they would do. Today there are several makers of military hardware formed by those same people and GM is no longer the single source supplier of alot of the US militaries hardware although the US Government is highly involved in the security of the data to keep their secrets secure, ie how do you keep a tank from being disabled when hit directly by a bomb or how do you destroy another tank on the battlefield before they can take a shot at you. Military Humvees also used to be made by GM and they are also now made by a 3rd party, they now sell them to the public to keep the money flowing smoothly.

It only takes seconds for me to click on your name in this thread and find you're in the same country as me, which you can find by clicking on my name.

I have better things to do with my time.

Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.

I know exactly what's going on, all I didn't know was which grant you were claiming.

When you said "After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?" you don't have any idea that you're referring to CJRS compensating employers 80% of salary up to 2.5k/month for laying off employees or SEISS for the self-employed (your tradesman mate, presumably) up to the same limit of profits declared in past years. Or the grants offered, or the Business rates cut below a certain limit, or the Gov't backed loans.

It doesn't matter which it is, my point still stands, all this magic money from the government has to come from somewhere. Expect massive tax rises.

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

Err... because both the 2nd and 3rd "lockdowns" were massively less restrictive that the first one (the 2nd least of all). In the 3rd, my own employer was open throughout, as were many others.
That should've been obvious to everybody, but seeing as you don't seem to have understood the first thing about any of them, I can hardly be surprised you didn't notice this either.

I have not paid attention to what each of the lockdowns do in detail, as I've disobeyed all of them. Are you actually telling me people were truthful? You just tell the government you were badly hit by the lockdown again. It doesn't even have to be direct, it can be a drop in custom. The government themselves said they were "surprised" at the amount of people lying!

I can't. You can't. Gov'ts that issue their own currency all can and do. The US most of all, the UK not yet sufficiently.
Again, if you don't understand that, no wonder you're confused.
But wait until you hear about how private banks create money out of thin air with nothing backing it at all. A very different thing that's something worth you worrying about.

If you really believe banks and the government can do that, then you must also believe they could do it permanently, and never charge us tax again.

You've forgotten your own point.
I didn't claim you wouldn't get to hear about people you know dying.
You said "it wasn't that bad to get Covid19" because people you know who didn't have it bad said it wasn't bad. Well, obviously, but meaningless.

Unless you also talked to people who either died from it (before they died, obvs) about how bad it was, or people who had it bad enough to be on mechanical ventilation, or who had it bad enough to be hospitalised for it, or who had it badly, or sometimes not so badly, but who could never quite shake off the symptoms in spite of no longer having a live infection, because of the prolonged effect of the damage it did, then you wouldn't have any kind of balanced view of its seriousness. You barely have any examples backing up your point and certainly not a representative amount that allows you to draw any conclusions.

It's a big enough dataset to see huge numbers not getting it, and a fair number getting nothing more than a flu, and none dying.

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

I'm sorry you don't have any understanding of the significance of sample size. 6 isn't representative for any purpose,. Neither, if it even needs to be said out loud, is zero.

It's accurate enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. The error margin decreases as you increase the amount of data, but if I shot you 6 times and you didn't die either time, I'd say my gun was busted and I'd probably be right.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Extraordinary. No need for me to comment. It stands on its own merits, of which it has none.

I see you're incapable of making any arguments against my logical thinking.

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

You can't go grieving every death there is. People get run over all the time.

I work in quite a small business. 82 from 36,000 is <a lot>

No, it's 0.23%, you wouldn't even notice it, you probably get random fluctuations bigger than that all the time.

Your ability to draw conclusions from no information is remarkable for someone who is simultaneously able to dismiss vast amounts of data as unrepresentative.
It wouldn't be possible for me to drive more than I breath if my job was a permanent driver.

Yes it would, since when you're driving you're not breathing someone else's air.

As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.

Then wear a mask and stop grumbling.

It certainly was not true that 15% of the UK was "refusing" to take the vaccine two months ago, at a time when only half the current number had received a first dose for the simple reason they'd never been offered it.
At best that's wishful thinking from people who literally couldn't have had any idea what they were talking about, which is the worst kind of person to be so gullible as to uncritically believe.

Here you go

Congratulations.
In a report dated 4th Feb 21, when only 73% of the 4 most vulnerable priority groups had their first vaccine dose, and 27% hadn't been scheduled yet, a statement that said 85% reach would be sufficient for herd immunity was contorted by the worst paper in the country into an unrelated 15% refusal to take a vaccine, that 2 weeks later (3 months ago) turned out to be a 97.3% uptake (when a maximum 97.5% were eligible to take it up for clinical reasons) among those age groups and related cohorts.

And 3 months later you're still trying to use it as a statement that you're among a large group of people not taking it up as if that puts you into a mainstream viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint of outright cranks. It always amuses me, when some people will believe any old dross, that the only thing you chose to believe is the outright most comically ludicrous and plainly false drivel, while rejecting all the rational information out there. Do you have difficulties in discerning the lack of causal relationship between one piece of information and another, because I'd expect better of anyone with a reading-age above 10.

And you wonder why I repeatedly point out that everything you say is wrong and point out you don't have the first clue what's going on in your own country.
Congratulations indeed.

It's simply not possible to claim that the only people who have been offered an opportunity to be vaccinated is skewed data, when those who haven't had it haven't been offered it

Contrarywise, I'm going by whether people say they will want it, once it's offered to them. You're the one only looking at data for older people.

For clarity, you're saying you're right because you looked at a survey of what people <claim> they will do in the future, as against <what they actually did> after they did it. And you're still claiming you're right after we know what they did?
Extraordinary.

You remind me of that colossal prat Desmond Swayne MP who repeatedly made hysterical speeches in the HoC against vaccines, almost daily, then took the self-same vaccine on almost the first day he was eligible for it. And even he wasn't as gullible as you.

It's not that you worry less. It's that you've exposed yourself to the most ludicrous nutjob propaganda - which is plain because you're regurgitating the worst of it here in exactly the same form that it's promoted - and claiming it to be your own opinion, when it's equally plain that it's only "your opinion" because you're so gullible as not to see through the quite outrageous nonsense of it. As with so much else you offer "your opinion" on.

No, I refuse to be worried about it because I've seen the small number of people dying from it. I only worry about the likely.

You keep writing "no" when every word you say and claim makes it patently obvious to everyone you mean "yes, completely and totally".
By saying you "refuse" to be worried, you're confirming that it's contrary to any and all evidence. If it wasn't, there'd be no need to "refuse".

As I keep saying, I'm not worried either, but that's because I make the minor modifications to my behaviour to not put myself in situations that represent a risk.
And by doing so, I don't think there's a single thing that I've wanted to do and was available to do that I haven't done, through all the apparent "lockdowns". Not a bother.

---

It only takes seconds for me to click on your name in this thread and find you're in the same country as me, which you can find by clicking on my name.

I have better things to do with my time.

It takes less time to click and read and discover something you don't know than it takes for you to write that you don't know while remaining ignorant.
Your priority seems to be to maintain your ignorance at all costs. To be fair, you've been very successful. Well done.

Which is a bit of a surprise, seeing as you don't seem to have a single clue what's going on in this country, in spite of you directly referring to it.

I know exactly what's going on, all I didn't know was which grant you were claiming.

What's apparent is you either know nothing or everything you do know is wrong - which seems to be the way you prefer it.
Not sure if I've already used this phrase here but "glorying in your own ignorance" seems to be one of your key aspirations.
Successfully achieved too, I might add. So much winning.

When you said "After living off tax payers' money, which won't hurt the world at all will it?" you don't have any idea that you're referring to CJRS compensating employers 80% of salary up to 2.5k/month for laying off employees or SEISS for the self-employed (your tradesman mate, presumably) up to the same limit of profits declared in past years. Or the grants offered, or the Business rates cut below a certain limit, or the Gov't backed loans.

It doesn't matter which it is, my point still stands, all this magic money from the government has to come from somewhere. Expect massive tax rises.

Not knowing which is a peculiar form of "know(ing) exactly what's going on"
Except not knowing the details is a big part of not knowing that your point falls completely.
Creating money is a fundamental part of what the BoE does.
There are a couple of reasons why creating money doesn't cost anything at this time, some of which I've pointed out, but you didn't understand them and you seem strangely wedded to an idea that doesn't now, nor has it ever existed, so it would be pointless for me repeat it.

And how claims for it reduced markedly in the 2nd & 3rd lockdowns to 45-55%.

Why would anything have changed?

Err... because both the 2nd and 3rd "lockdowns" were massively less restrictive that the first one (the 2nd least of all). In the 3rd, my own employer was open throughout, as were many others.
That should've been obvious to everybody, but seeing as you don't seem to have understood the first thing about any of them, I can hardly be surprised you didn't notice this either.

I have not paid attention to what each of the lockdowns do in detail, as I've disobeyed all of them. Are you actually telling me people were truthful? You just tell the government you were badly hit by the lockdown again. It doesn't even have to be direct, it can be a drop in custom. The government themselves said they were "surprised" at the amount of people lying!

Yup, not paying attention to any of the details is another odd way of knowing exactly what's going on...
As is guessing that the way I know is by what people claim they're doing. No, I'm not telling you that.
I'm reporting what the Gov't itself has detailed is being claimed from them under each of the schemes and how much it's costing them. <Inclusive> of what may be falsely claimed (which is certainly true and a lot of people have been caught for it, though why the Gov't were surprised is itself surprising as they seem to be populated in their entirety by liars, charlatans and conmen).
And the answer is exactly as I stated at the start - if you knew exactly what was going on, you'd already know that and you wouldn't have had to ask and I wouldn't have to repeat myself.
And the interest that's being paid on these Gov't loans (at almost zero rate) is <less> in total than it was before they borrowed any of it, which is why there's no need for any tax hike to pay for it.

I can't. You can't. Gov'ts that issue their own currency all can and do. The US most of all, the UK not yet sufficiently.
Again, if you don't understand that, no wonder you're confused.
But wait until you hear about how private banks create money out of thin air with nothing backing it at all. A very different thing that's something worth you worrying about.

If you really believe banks and the government can do that, then you must also believe they could do it permanently, and never charge us tax again.

Because I've followed this type of conversation before I know you're thinking you've found the flaw in this whole scheme.
Except... the BoE have been asked this question directly and it's become quite embarrassing to them.
Their current answer is "let's get back to you on that..." and nothing has been heard back since that I'm aware of.
The problem isn't that <I> believe anything one way or another.
The problem is that the BoE are struggling to find a reason why it isn't true.
And in the meantime, the same thing is happening in the EU, the US and the UK.

You've forgotten your own point.
I didn't claim you wouldn't get to hear about people you know dying.
You said "it wasn't that bad to get Covid19" because people you know who didn't have it bad said it wasn't bad. Well, obviously, but meaningless.

Unless you also talked to people who either died from it (before they died, obvs) about how bad it was, or people who had it bad enough to be on mechanical ventilation, or who had it bad enough to be hospitalised for it, or who had it badly, or sometimes not so badly, but who could never quite shake off the symptoms in spite of no longer having a live infection, because of the prolonged effect of the damage it did, then you wouldn't have any kind of balanced view of its seriousness. You barely have any examples backing up your point and certainly not a representative amount that allows you to draw any conclusions.

It's a big enough dataset to see huge numbers not getting it, and a fair number getting nothing more than a flu, and none dying.

Lol! I mean, even after you using the word "dataset" when you meant "sample size", still lol.
So you're saying a sample of 6 out of (checking) 4,446,824 is representative when, further down, 82 out of 36,000 is barely noticeable - that's one thing.
But zero out of (checking again) 152,848 being representative is next level.

You're obviously far cleverer than all of us, so please indulge us on how we should assess significance. And why the more samples out of a smaller dataset is less significant than very much fewer samples (or even none!) from a very much larger number.

Take your time. I wouldn't want to miss a step out of the workings of a master such as yourself.

6:0 is a good ratio. If your car started and allowed you to commute to work 6 times in a row, and failed 0 times, you'd say it was in good working order.

I'm sorry you don't have any understanding of the significance of sample size. 6 isn't representative for any purpose,. Neither, if it even needs to be said out loud, is zero.

It's accurate enough to draw a reasonable conclusion. The error margin decreases as you increase the amount of data, but if I shot you 6 times and you didn't die either time, I'd say my gun was busted and I'd probably be right.

Truly, we are not worthy.
Could you run through this one too, if you can find enough time in your busy day? Please?

Because I won't hear it that you're actually a complete imbecile and you're not afraid to show us how much of one you are. That's not possible.

Jesus H Christ...
So, apart from driving illegally and in a way that invalidates your insurance,

Crashing while speeding with no belt on does not invalidate my insurance. And rules are for the the obedience of fools.

you seem to think the only thing that can go wrong is that you die. Do your sums again with odds of 1 in 200 for car insurance claims.

A dent doesn't matter.

My point was, even when <only> 1 in 40k die from it, not only do I and most sane people modify our behaviour based on that relative unlikelihood,

Why worry about 1 in 40,000? That is a horrendously small number.

but the Gov't legislates to ensure there are penalties if we don't.

Sticking their nose in to our lives. It's nobody's business how safe I live my life. And their ensuring sux. They haven't made me stick to the limit or wear a belt in my 24 years of driving. Their little fines when they happen to see me first cost two orders of magnitude less than the petrol.

Because that's what's considered appropriate proportionality in this country - by everyone bar you and the criminal fraternity, who you weirdly seem to want to align yourself with

Stealing your TV is criminal. Speeding isn't. If I tell someone in my street that I stole a TV, they'd report me. If I tell them I speed, they say "tut tut" or "everyone does it".

Extraordinary. No need for me to comment. It stands on its own merits, of which it has none.

I see you're incapable of making any arguments against my logical thinking.

It's not a matter of logic. It's a matter of fact
- Crashing while speeding does invalidate your insurance as you'll have crashed while breaking the law
- It's not true that the only accidents you can have are death (of yourself) or a small dent that you don't need to bother with
- I'm not worried by odds of 1 in 40,000 - that's what I said - but I account for it anyway, which is why I don't worry
- Whether you think the Gov't intrudes into your life too much or not, the law is still the law and you get convicted if you break it
- Conviction for speeding is a criminal, not civil offence, as is non-payment of a speeding fine

Don't argue these points me - the judge will take care of that
But bear in mind what I said "It stands on its own merits, of which it has none"

On the basis that "One death is a tragedy, 25,000 dead is a statistic". You've made yourself clear.

You can't go grieving every death there is. People get run over all the time.

You clearly won't. Someone will for every one. And when the ultimate responsibility falls to the Gov't, they'll be held to account (in any civilised country, which this one might not be)

As it happens, I work in a public area. The number of paying customers I mentioned is vastly fewer than the footfall passing through the area I directly work in. In the region of 10s of thousands per week.

Then wear a mask and stop grumbling.

You even seem to be extremely confused about who's upset. Blimey!

---