John Wright

Total shambles.

That’s one way to get “eggs”

No. It’s not crossed the line. There are no names. But it’s time to remind posters to be careful.

There was once an advocate, KWC educated, and probably having been kicked to the head in rugby once too often, used to stress some words oddly, De-fault and de-fence were two. I’ve always found de-fence sitting uncomfortable.

Maitre Wright to you, or Notaire Wright, or Advocate Wright, which the Law Society tried to introduce 20 years ago. Please, Ian, ‘saw bones’, Mr, Dr Wright, is correct. No speculation. There may be a trial, there will be an inquest if there isn’t.

I think it’s you who misunderstand, Roger. The main purpose of track and trace isn’t to trace back where you caught it from. It’s to look for who you may passed it onto. I accept that running genomics may be an interesting look backward. And it may inform about the dangers of major variations. But, having read all the articles and links posted today I’m not convinced how it would actually have reduced our recent spike or avoided or lessened the circuit breaker. The source of less than 10% of recent transmission is unknown. I think that’s really the problem. The two different i

Why are people so judgmental? What has an ex of hers skipping bail got to do with any of this? Don't reply. The questions are rhetorical. He’s done OK. Got his money back, after e-bay/PayPal fees, on the jet ski. Have lifestyle/gossip/redtop media really paid them for interviews. Must be a slow month.

Quiet week anticipated, then. If you want turgid sports coverage you could attempt the Torygraph

I’d imagine it may be connected to not wanting to report to police because of the disruption at a busy time and not getting into police and licensing bad books. Is it possible, I’ve no views, that that’s a pretty tame thing for the venue?

Be ashamed, Gladys, very ashamed, to be quoting the Sunday Wail.

Most of that testing was, and still is, test 72 hours before travel/arrival. A route we didn’t go down. Boy David said it only catches 7%. That’s a discredited figure. It may catch up to 50% if you shed and are detectable 7 out of 14 days. But then you’ve up to 3 days in which to get infected. So, it may stop between 1/3 and one half of positives reaching here. But there are inherent issues with patient transfers having to be tested and hang around in UK.

The breakdown in relationships between Ms Glover and Government primarily happened when 7 day testing was removed by Government without consulting her. ( I’m sure there were other reasons, she’s told us about them, but that was what crystallised it ). Im not sure that 7 day testing would necessarily have picked up some of the transmissions within co-travelling co-isolating households. And I don’t recall anyone asking/recommending day 1 and 13 or 1, 6/7 and 13 day testing in October.

The problem is that there are two imperatives here, and they’ve slightly different reasonings behind them. They’re both valid, but slightly more difficult to reconcile. There’s the scientific curiosity and research imperative. Worthy. May provide answers short, medium and long term. Then there’s the public health imperative to eliminate, eradicate, limit or control. Given our population size, and the fact we’ve had fewer than 70 cases since June, when lock down 1 ended, and that most of those came in, exclusively, at least until Christmas, as returning patients, residents or

They are both produced. White are probably produced in larger quantity. But because brown shell became associated in the mind of the buying consumer with free range, barn, healthier option ( a false connection ) the brown went to domestic consumers, and the egg producer got a little more, and white went into commercial and industrial supply chain. Schools, restaurants, cafes aren’t using the white eggs they normally would because of lockdown. Hens can’t just be switched off. So it’s slaughter or diversify markets. Supermarkets can buy white eggs for less and sell for the same price. So th

Thanks for the vote of confidence. They need a mediator, someone who is qualified in Alternative Dispute Resolution. Two things. 1. Both parties need to agree and engage to try and resolve their differences 2. if it fails it’s all confidential and what’s said can’t be bandied about in public or used in court. Given the parties behaviour to date would that be possible to achieve? There, I’ve disqualified myself.