mistermack

This seems to be a case of looking for complication, in something absolutely simple. Imagine two people facing each other holding a rope taut. When one pulls harder, the other is pulled forward. When one relaxes, the other moves in the opposite direction due to the tension he's applying. So a rope under tension transmits a duplicate back and forward motion from one end to the other. There's the mechanism of transmission.

If you want to know about independents, ask Donald Trump. He's been in all the parties and donated to all the parties at some time or other. Apparently he's leaning towards the Republicans at the moment.

If you take that principle to the extreme, then you would get stuff that would HAVE to be banned. Like Russian Roulette shows on tv. Winner take all.

Like I said I'm pulled both ways. But I don't think you can equate boxing with Rugby or American Football. It's the sheer number of hits to the head that's the difference. There's only two boxers in the ring, not two teams of fifteen, or fifty odd (that's what it looks like anyway) in American football. Hit's to the head are not what's aimed at, and they are much fewer. Even so, soccer players in the past got dementia that was put down to heading the ball in practice. Especially in the old days, of heavier leather balls. If I was 18 and just going into boxing, I'd try to do it without sparring, or at least sparring involving head shots. If you could cut out the hits to the head in training, it might make the difference. I'm not really arguing about deaths. I agree, deaths happen in many sports. It's brain damage I'm talking about.

No germs alloyed.

You might think I have a firm opinion, from the title, but I'm pulled both ways. I like watching boxing. (male) But there's no denying the brain damage it causes. Mohammed Ali is the prime example. You do get the odd death, but you get that in other sports, and if that was all there was it would be easier to be against a ban. But the brain damage happens to every boxer. You can't box and not take head shots. Many boxers show no sign of damage, but they definitely do suffer it, some more than others. I'm quite concerned about Saturday's World Heavyweight Championship bout between Anthony Joshua and Andy Ruiz. I've followed Joshua's career since before he became champion, and there has been a trend. He's hugely impressive, until he takes a good head shot. But once he's been nailed, he's a completely different fighter for two or three rounds. It's very unusual, but it happened in several of his bouts. Many boxers are back to full alertness in seconds, but for Joshua to be affected for two or three rounds is really unusual, and I would honestly advise him to pack it in, if he was talking to me now. You only get one shot at life, and he could be risking it more than he knows. I still don't know if I would ban boxing though. I hate women's boxing, I wouldn't watch it, but I wouldn't ban it unless men's boxing was banned too.

What's missing is the importance of variation in individuals to evolution. That's why generalisations like "women find this or that attractive" are usually wide of the mark. What people find attractive varies widely, and that's an important part of evolution. When you have variety in a population, it improves the chances of the species surviving setbacks, and evolving to match new circumstances. You get that variety in physical and psychological traits. I don't recognise your claims of "males prefer this" and "females prefer that". It's not reflected in the people that I know. Some do, some don't.

I do a stool sample every year. It's free in the UK after a certain age. There's nothing in the instructions on our kits about food restrictions, it must be a different process. It does say that finding blood can be from a range of different causes, so it's not the time to panic, but obviously it wouldn't be wise to skip the colonoscopy. My next door neighbour actually got colon cancer a few years ago, he's only about fifty. He was successfully treated and has had no subsequent problems at all. But anyway, hope your results are good.

Wikipedia didn't find any herd immunity from vaccinating the elderly, I'm going with that opinion. They also say : Herd immunity itself acts as an evolutionary pressure on certain viruses, influencing viral evolution by encouraging the production of novel strains, in this case referred to as escape mutants, that are able to "escape" from herd immunity and spread more easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Evolutionary_pressure

That's a very simplistic view. It applies most definitely in the case of the MMR vaccine, where you have an effective vaccine and no serious side effects. Where you have vaccines that are far less effective, and that have far more serious possible side effects, the argument doesn't stand up. You can have the jab, and still get flu. You can vaccinate everybody, and still get a serious epidemic of a slightly different type. You can get swine flu, chicken flu, duck flu, Spanish flu, Chinese flu. Comparing flu vaccine to MMR or smallpox is like comparing chalk and cheese. There's no prospect of any degree of herd immunity being achieved by vaccinating the elderly, according to wikipedia, because the vaccine isn't effective enough, and the immune system weakens with age. There's some hint of a statistical effect being achieved by vaccinating the young, but not the old : Influenza (flu) is more severe in the elderly than in younger age groups, but influenza vaccines lack effectiveness in this demographic due to a waning of the immune system with age.[7][26] The prioritization of school-age children for seasonal flu immunization, which is more effective than vaccinating the elderly, however, has shown to create a certain degree of protection for the elderly.[7][26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Having said all that, I might well get a jab next year. I just had a look at the NHS page on vaccination and apparently, there is a 24% reduction in the chance of a stroke, for people over 65 who have the jab in the autumn. That's enough to sway me so I'll pencil in a jab for next year. I'm more scared of strokes than I am of flu. https://www.nhs.uk/news/neurology/flu-jab-may-cut-stroke-risk-by-a-quarter/

I did say in my post that I was only quoting anecdotes and have no personal experience or knowledge of the figures. My mother was working with the elderly many years ago now, she's been dead more than ten years, and was retired for some time before that. However, the friend I mentioned who had the reaction was last year. He always had a flu jab, was happy with it, never had a reaction before, and told me that I should be having it. But his reaction last year was so bad he now swears never again. He wasn't hospitalised, but he was absolutely knocked for six for at least a full week, and was not fully recovered for several weeks after that. Like I said, it's only an anecdote, one person's experience. I know other people who have it every year, and never have any problem. As he did, up to last year. I'm nearly seventy, I often think I'm gambling, not having it. It's a gamble both ways. In my case, I virtually never get a cold, and probably haven't had the flu for at least forty years. I don't remember ever having it. I keep a diary, and I went six years once without a cold, the last three were six, three and two year intervals. I know a cold isn't flu, but I seem to resist viruses fairly well. (so far ) If I believed in tempting fate, I wouldn't be writing this. 😕

Doesn't say much for the effectiveness of the flu jab. I've never had it, my mother was a nurse dealing mainly with the elderly, and she never had it and didn't recommend it. She reckoned that the reaction to it could be almost as bad as the flu itself. I have a friend who's over seventy, and he had it regularly, but the last time, he was ill for a week and had after affects for a lot longer, and he swears he'll never have it again. It's all anecdotal, I have no idea what the figures show.

I'm sure it has, and that's bound to be a factor. I don't have any figures on people giving up with the help of vaping, but my sister and her husband have both given up due to it. Her husband switched to vaping, and he vapes far less than he used to smoke. With nobody else smoking in the house, my sister stopped altogether, without vaping at all. Not a scientific study, but it worked great for them.

Depends what you mean by healthier. They are probably fitter, but their life expectancy in their country of origin would have been a lot less than their British counterparts. I can believe that they might well be fitter, given a less sedentary childhood and later life. Whether that will translate into a longer life in this country, who knows? It probably will, if they keep off the cigarettes and drugs but it will take years to be sure. There is an effect that happens across generations, where second and third generations benefit from the health of their parents and grandparents. It shows up in the across the board increase in height of people in wealthy countries over the last couple of hundred years. Maybe something similar might happen with life expectancy.

More sedentary lifestyles, for childhood onwards. More drug use. More low-skilled immigration, adding to the numbers of smokers and poor diets. More take aways and high-fat foods. I would have thought that vaping would have a positive effect though. I know lifetime smokers who no longer smoke cigarettes, having given up with the help of vaping. Vitamin supplements don't seem to have made a big difference. I take one a day, just as an attempt to counter my lousy diet.