Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[dynamark]

First topic message reminder :

I suppose it sort of makes sense with the Dyson effort because they just have to switch to blow.
Hope it works.
The self employed will have to adjust in future and get a bit closer to the NI and paye system.It has always been a bit unwritten that you can limit your contributions somewhat as self employed in the building trade and others but a big part of the economy. Again this may close a few gaps

[navyblueshorts]

8 more weeks, or 8 in total?

I don't know how they will start letting things get back to normal without a vaccine or the test to see if you've had it. That could be months and months.

Just a guess but I think 8 weeks in total before there's any significant change, they are going to want to get new infections and deaths down to well under 100 a day I would think. There comes a point when it's more important to get the economy back on track than save the lives of a few dozen people a day who would have been scheduled to die at some point in the near future anyway. Harsh, but true, and with 16,000 dying a day under normal circumstances, they'll have to make a call on it. Worth bearing in mind that the number of people who have died in the UK over the entire outbreak is not even half the amount of people who die under normal circumstances in one single day.

I think a vaccine is pretty unlikely in the short term, far more likely is an antibody test.

The query on this, is that it's hard to say how many people were on deaths door and on the way out before catching the virus. We just don't have the numbers available. I guess if the government make a call that people will die who weren't imminently going to die, and live with that in the name of the economy. They will have to own it.  It's a big call though.

True. It's a huge call and they won't do it; at least, not openly. They'll be killed in the media and by all those looking for a reason to pound them.

[navyblueshorts]

Think we need to keep an eye on what happens in Wuhan / Hubei in the coming weeks and see if there is any 2nd wave of infections... if they report such numbers. Prefer to sit tight and maintain the current status quo before rushing out again - waving flags, hugging and cheering each other.

I think we should all take any Chinese data w/ a largeish pinch of salt.

[super_realist]

They have to at some point Navy. You can't keep people and the economy isolated for a few people who might have died anyway. What are you suggesting, no deaths for a month?

[navyblueshorts]

8 more weeks, or 8 in total?

I don't know how they will start letting things get back to normal without a vaccine or the test to see if you've had it. That could be months and months.

Just a guess but I think 8 weeks in total before there's any significant change, they are going to want to get new infections and deaths down to well under 100 a day I would think. There comes a point when it's more important to get the economy back on track than save the lives of a few dozen people a day who would have been scheduled to die at some point in the near future anyway. Harsh, but true, and with 16,000 dying a day under normal circumstances, they'll have to make a call on it. Worth bearing in mind that the number of people who have died in the UK over the entire outbreak is not even half the amount of people who die under normal circumstances in one single day.

I think a vaccine is pretty unlikely in the short term, far more likely is an antibody test.

The query on this, is that it's hard to say how many people were on deaths door and on the way out before catching the virus. We just don't have the numbers available. I guess if the government make a call that people will die who weren't imminently going to die, and live with that in the name of the economy. They will have to own it.  It's a big call though.

Doctors and Scientists are aligned in saying that the vast majority of people who have died were likely to die at some point in the near future. I've lost count of the amount of them saying this.

So what? To suggest that on this basis it's OK to do f-all re. Covid is repugnant. Some discussed what to do w/ so-called 'useless eaters' ~80 years back and look where that led what was considered to be a pretty advanced and 'civilised' society. I'm extrapolating, I know, but you get the point.

[super_realist]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

[navyblueshorts]

BBC sport put together a list of the 50 best sports movies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/52072024


My question is, are there actually any good sports movies?

I'm w/ them for 'Cool Runnings', but generally I don't watch 'sport' movies; they're too often cr@p. Bull Durham was pretty good though.

[navyblueshorts]

They have to at some point Navy. You can't keep people and the economy isolated for a few people who might have died anyway. What are you suggesting, no deaths for a month?

Of course they do. I know that. Huge call how they do it and how they trail the reasoning in the media, however. By the way, we all 'die anyway'; the ethics around this are difficult and to do this badly would play into all the old stereotypes of the 'Nasty Party'. Would actually have been interesting to see how a Labour Government would have handled that sort of thing for all their normal moralising...

[navyblueshorts]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

[navyblueshorts]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

No; that's true, but we should be very, very careful around this area.

[super_realist]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

[super_realist]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

No; that's true, but we should be very, very careful around this area.

I wasn't anything other than there comes a point where numbers are sufficiently small and infection rates low enough to warrant a loosening of restrictions.

[JAS]

They have to at some point Navy. You can't keep people and the economy isolated for a few people who might have died anyway. What are you suggesting, no deaths for a month?

Of course they do. I know that. Huge call how they do it and how they trail the reasoning in the media, however. By the way, we all 'die anyway'; the ethics around this are difficult and to do this badly would play into all the old stereotypes of the 'Nasty Party'. Would actually have been interesting to see how a Labour Government would have handled that sort of thing for all their normal moralising...

I’m not sure it would have been interesting Navy, it would have been terrifying, the Labour Party whether Corbyn (especially) Starmer or even Blair would simply not have been given the total support of the vested interests. Their strategy would have been undermined persistently. We are actually quite lucky in a perverse way that we have a populist old Etonian in charge and multiply that by the fact he’s at least tried his best to invoke a unifying approach and we’re in a much better place than we could have been, that’s not to say they haven’t made the odd misjudgement but broadly I think they played it quite well. Johnson has gone way up in my estimation, hell even Hancock has as well, still wouldn’t vote for them but respect their efforts. The puzzling one for me is the complete absence of Patel. The Home Sec should be all over this playing a really prominent role, she’s completely missing in action at the daily briefings. All I’ve heard from a home office perspective is that passport office workers have been bullied back to work...wtf??

[super_realist]

Patel is a bit of a crackpot. I wouldn't have put her in a cabinet, she has some very odd views. I did hear her today on radio saying it was totally unacceptable for the Police to be telling people what they can and cannot buy, so she's not completely absent.

[McLaren]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

Super

Do you really think a guy with a phd in biology thinks viruses have a brain or that evolution is about the decisions sentient organisms make?

[super_realist]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

Super

Do you really think a guy with a phd in biology thinks viruses have a brain or that evolution is about the decisions sentient organisms make?

No, it's called figurative language Mac, besides don't you think that if viruses in a pandemic didn't mutate to a negative degree for the virus that we would have become extinct thousands of years ago?

[McLaren]

But you were dismissing Navys idea that the virus cannot take out too many hosts. Most viral mutations will effect the viruses ability to evade or counteract the hosts immune response and how it can attach to and exit the cell.

For example there is a 12 letter insertion to the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to attach to the hosts cells. Is this a negative or positive effect? I am not sure because that is not the sort of language used to describe mutations. It certainly appears to have broadened the range of hosts this virus can replicate in.

[super_realist]

But you were dismissing Navys idea that the virus cannot take out too many hosts. Most viral mutations will effect the viruses ability to evade or counteract the hosts immune response and how it can attach to and exit the cell.

For example there is a 12 letter insertion to the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to attach to the hosts cells. Is this a negative or positive effect? I am not sure because that is not the sort of language used to describe mutations.  It certainly appears to have broadened the range of hosts this virus can replicate in.

I didn't dismiss that Mac, there has probably been some virus (or bacteria) at some point in history which has made at least one species extinct over time also resulting in extinction of that virus/bacteria but in our experience this family of virus does not do that and mutates in a way which makes it less virulent.

How can you claim to be a scientist and not know the difference between affect and effect?

[McLaren]

How can you claim to be a scientist and not know the difference between affect and effect?

I guess I skipped the class on molecular grammer.

[super_realist]

How can you claim to be a scientist and not know the difference between affect and effect?

I guess I skipped the class on molecular grammer.

Or grammar even.

[McLaren]

How can you claim to be a scientist and not know the difference between affect and effect?

I guess I skipped the class on molecular grammer.

Or grammar even.

Your rising to the bate their.

[super_realist]

How can you claim to be a scientist and not know the difference between affect and effect?

I guess I skipped the class on molecular grammer.

Or grammar even.

Your rising to the bate their.

It's impossible to tell with your level of illiteracy.

[navyblueshorts]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

I'm talking about natural selection. What you see at any one time is the steady-state. Viruses that are too lethal to their host aren't going to survive for too long.

As to the highlighted sentence, no. They're mutating all the time; in fact, viruses generally have a very high rate of mutation. Most of the variation isn't a selective advantage though.

[navyblueshorts]

They have to at some point Navy. You can't keep people and the economy isolated for a few people who might have died anyway. What are you suggesting, no deaths for a month?

Of course they do. I know that. Huge call how they do it and how they trail the reasoning in the media, however. By the way, we all 'die anyway'; the ethics around this are difficult and to do this badly would play into all the old stereotypes of the 'Nasty Party'. Would actually have been interesting to see how a Labour Government would have handled that sort of thing for all their normal moralising...

I’m not sure it would have been interesting Navy, it would have been terrifying, the Labour Party whether Corbyn (especially) Starmer or even Blair would simply not have been given the total support of the vested interests. Their strategy would have been undermined persistently. We are actually quite lucky in a perverse way  that we have a populist old Etonian in charge and multiply that by the fact he’s at least tried his best to invoke a unifying approach and we’re in a much better place than we could have been, that’s not to say they haven’t made the odd misjudgement but broadly I think they played it quite well. Johnson has gone way up in my estimation, hell even Hancock has as well, still wouldn’t vote for them but respect their efforts. The puzzling one for me is the complete absence of Patel. The Home Sec should be all over this playing a really prominent role, she’s completely missing in action at the daily briefings. All I’ve heard from a home office perspective is that passport office workers have been bullied back to work...wtf??

I meant interesting academically to see them wring their hands about when things should be relaxed given the ethical considerations. Patel's absence is interesting, given the traditional rank of Home Secretary, normally third after Chancellor. Can't say I miss the pillock, though; best if she stays away.

[navyblueshorts]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

Super

Do you really think a guy with a phd in biology thinks viruses have a brain or that evolution is about the decisions sentient organisms make?

Do me a favour; biochemistry, please.

[pedro]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

Super

Do you really think a guy with a phd in biology thinks viruses have a brain or that evolution is about the decisions sentient organisms make?

No, it's called figurative language Mac, besides don't you think that if viruses in a pandemic didn't mutate to a negative degree for the virus that we would have become extinct thousands of years ago?

If a virus is too lethal, its hosts will die faster than it can spread. That’s what happened in the second wave of the Spanish Flu, and why the virus eventually disappeared.

[super_realist]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

I'm talking about natural selection. What you see at any one time is the steady-state. Viruses that are too lethal to their host aren't going to survive for too long.

As to the highlighted sentence, no. They're mutating all the time; in fact, viruses generally have a very high rate of mutation. Most of the variation isn't a selective advantage though.

That's precisely what I was saying and what boneheaded Mac couldn't grasp.

[dynamark]

It does make you wonder how human race survived the likes of flu,mumps and measles.Maybe folk will fully take up those vaccines after this.Awake early today due to going bye bye early and some very informed folk on the radio scientist trying to work out why the body seems to jog along quite happily with little side effect and then after a week or so the immune system suddenly bursts into life and overeacts.Also trialling the drug originally developed for ebola in the states.
Its also been quite good to see no religious outcry blaming this on some sort of retribution and accepting shut down of places of worship.Give them a bit of perspective.Some complaining about not being able to have their traditional funeral arrangements and not taking bodies back to the place they wanted to be laid to rest but they are having to accept it.

[super_realist]

Disgusting that the IPSA has given mp's an extra 10k to set up working from home equipment.

[navyblueshorts]

The point is that the number of people dying is still incredibly small in relation to those dying from other causes. I didn't even imply we do nothing.

The good thing about viruses is that they usually mutate in a negative way for the virus.

Not necessarily so. Too lethal for host and disadvantageous to virus. Viruses don't want to kill their hosts too easily as that's self-defeating.

They don't have a brain to be able to make that decision. I did say "usually" to be fair. Whether they mutate is a reaction to many factors which are beyond the control or "wishes" of a virus.

I'm talking about natural selection. What you see at any one time is the steady-state. Viruses that are too lethal to their host aren't going to survive for too long.

As to the highlighted sentence, no. They're mutating all the time; in fact, viruses generally have a very high rate of mutation. Most of the variation isn't a selective advantage though.

That's precisely what I was saying and what boneheaded Mac couldn't grasp.

Maybe.

[navyblueshorts]

It does make you wonder how human race survived the likes of flu,mumps and measles.Maybe folk will fully take up those vaccines after this.Awake early today due to going bye bye early and some very informed folk on the radio  scientist trying to work out why the body seems to  jog along quite happily with little side effect and then after a week or so the immune system suddenly bursts into life and overeacts.Also trialling the drug originally developed for ebola in the states.
Its also been quite good to see no religious outcry blaming this on some sort of retribution and accepting shut down of places of worship.Give them a bit of perspective.Some complaining about not being able to have their traditional funeral arrangements and not taking bodies back to the place they wanted to be laid to rest but they are having to accept it.

Many didn't survive those, and other things such as cholera, typhus, typhoid, diphtheria, yersinia etc etc. Constant battle.

Here's hoping that this will see a bit of a resurgence in 'science', and less tolerance of conspiracy nonsense. Given trashing of 5G masts, however, don't hold your breath. Also, hopefully, social media companies will be held more to account for absurd and dangerous content on their platforms.

[navyblueshorts]

Disgusting that the IPSA has given mp's an extra 10k to set up working from home equipment.

Really? That's pretty generous!

[beninho]

Disgusting that the IPSA has given mp's an extra 10k to set up working from home equipment.

I thought this at first, and then read about it is just an allowance, and does not need to be used, also mps have staff, and this may be needed to help set them up to work remotely.

I love to bash the (mainly) tory mps, but I'm holding fire on this one. Until I see someone massively take the pee

[super_realist]

Disgusting that the IPSA has given mp's an extra 10k to set up working from home equipment.

I thought this at first, and then read about it is just an allowance, and does not need to be used, also mps have staff, and this may be needed to help set them up to work remotely.

I love to bash the (mainly) tory mps, but I'm holding fire on this one. Until I see someone massively take the pee

Beninho, MPs get around 30k to run their office and something like 170k to run their staff, why do they need an extra 10k?

When I moved to working at home, bearing in mind I require a high performance PC that can handle graphics and process large volumes of data I was able to do it using remote desktop, two old screens, a keyboard, mouse and headset.
Not quite sure why an MP or his office would need any more than that, especially when they already get a fortune to run their offices and they don't require high performance PC's.

[beninho]

It's an allowance, some may not be set up, some may not have staff set up. I have no issues on this one.

[super_realist]

10k? How many staff do they have? They already get 30k to run their office. All their staff will already have PC's. What on earth do they need 10k for, it's not like Parliament doesn't have an IT department who would be able to do this for virtually nothing. There's 650 MP's. If they all spent that money, that's 6.5million quid which could certainly be better spent.

[beninho]

If they don't need it, they dont spend it. They've not been given a cheque for 10k. Its included within the budget. And I would presume , after the previous scandal, will be scrutinised.

[super_realist]

That's the point though Ben, they already get a staggering amount of money to run their affairs. Why on earth would they need more? Besides, it's not as if the majority of MP's do anything remotely important right now.

[beninho]

We still receive enquiries from local mps on behalf of constituents. Its something my team deals with. So they are still helping out where they can.

[pedro]

it's not as if the majority of MP's do anything remotely important right now.

[McLaren]

It is so odd, people with poor understanding of economics think the country should be run like a business but when it comes to MPs renumeration they cannot handle them getting executive wages.

[super_realist]

It is so odd, people with poor understanding of economics think the country should be run like a business but when it comes to MPs renumeration they cannot handle them getting executive wages.

Mac, I'm fine with them getting their 80k, I actually don't think it's enough, however they get absurdly good expenses, allowances and money to run an office and pay for staff which are more than enough. I cannot see how they could possibly need up to 10k to arrange working from home in excess of the expenses and allowances they already receive.
It will be interesting to see how many of them take the offer up.

I'd be very interested to see if the plastic parliament in Edinburgh is also offering this allowance to their excessive number of 202 tinpot representatives.

[I'm never wrong]

One of my friends posted about this on Facebook. Have a look at Tim Loughtons response to one of his constituents posting that this was a pay rise. Facebook link to his page. He's not my MP, I just saw the post. Bottom line, he says he probably won't use it.

[super_realist]

One of my friends posted about this on Facebook.  Have a look at Tim Loughtons response to one of his constituents posting that this was a pay rise. Facebook link to his page. He's not my MP, I just saw the post. Bottom line, he says he probably won't use it.

Good, I think it has been wrongly reported as a pay rise although they already had an above inflation pay rise in March.

[kwinigolfer]

Considering the lousy outcomes and bone-headed gaffes from Johnson and, especially some of his troops, would he not have been better off appointing a more experienced cabinet?

Some of these entitled herberts that stand in front of the mic seem not to have lived in a world outside (metaphorically) Eton & Oxbridge.

The US (in Washington anyway) somewhat similar of course though more to do with sheer incompetence rather than lack of experience.

[super_realist]

Considering the lousy outcomes and bone-headed gaffes from Johnson and, especially some of his troops, would he not have been better off appointing a more experienced cabinet?

Some of these entitled herberts that stand in front of the mic seem not to have lived in a world outside (metaphorically) Eton & Oxbridge.

The US (in Washington anyway) somewhat similar of course though more to do with sheer incompetence rather than lack of experience.

Most MPs ( and their aides) have only ever worked in politics, whilst they could do with some real world experience, the opposite is true in America where Trump could do with political experience.

[navyblueshorts]

Considering the lousy outcomes and bone-headed gaffes from Johnson and, especially some of his troops, would he not have been better off appointing a more experienced cabinet?

Some of these entitled herberts that stand in front of the mic seem not to have lived in a world outside (metaphorically) Eton & Oxbridge.

The US (in Washington anyway) somewhat similar of course though more to do with sheer incompetence rather than lack of experience.

[kwinigolfer]

Considering the lousy outcomes and bone-headed gaffes from Johnson and, especially some of his troops, would he not have been better off appointing a more experienced cabinet?

Some of these entitled herberts that stand in front of the mic seem not to have lived in a world outside (metaphorically) Eton & Oxbridge.

The US (in Washington anyway) somewhat similar of course though more to do with sheer incompetence rather than lack of experience.

Most MPs ( and their aides) have only ever worked in politics, whilst they could do with some real world experience, the opposite is true in America where Trump could do with political experience.

super,
Trump could also do with business experience, as could most of his flunkies.
We said it well over a month ago, no successful business would have allowed this to whack them between the eyes and then perform so ineptly as Washington certainly has done, and possibly Worstminster as well.

[super_realist]

Interesting statistics on the BBC of the breakdown of deaths from coronavirus:

"Nearly three-quarters of the patients had a body mass index higher than the recommended healthy level of 18.5 to 25. Some 35% had a BMI of 25 to 30 - the overweight range. And 38.5% had a BMI over more than 30 - putting them in the obese range."

Not surprising we have such a high death rate given our appalling levels of obesity. Will the UK finally do  something about their gargantuan weight or will they continue to excuse it and blame it on someone else? I doubt even this will push them to do it. Too lazy, too stupid and too greedy.

Not only are they crippling the NHS with their diabetes and associated diseases, they are now putting the biggest strain on ICU departments in this current outbreak and yet they'll get no criticism for it.

[navyblueshorts]

Interesting statistics on the BBC of the breakdown of deaths from coronavirus:

"Nearly three-quarters of the patients had a body mass index higher than the recommended healthy level of 18.5 to 25. Some 35% had a BMI of 25 to 30 - the overweight range. And 38.5% had a BMI over more than 30 - putting them in the obese range."

Not surprising we have such a high death rate given our appalling levels of obesity. Will the UK finally do  something about their gargantuan weight or will they continue to excuse it and blame it on someone else? I doubt even this will push them to do it. Too lazy, too stupid and too greedy.

Not only are they crippling the NHS with their diabetes and associated diseases, they are now putting the biggest strain on ICU departments in this current outbreak and yet they'll get no criticism for it.

While this is a valid an interesting point re. covid (even if boringly banged on about), as I've said before, you're oversimplifying re. the ability to lose weight. That said though, you should look at what's happening around you - the younger generation aren't drinking (alcohol, that is) to anything like the same extent as my lot did (and do) and loads of people are now out in lycra etc. It's not going to change overnight.

[super_realist]

Of course it won't change overnight, but if other countries in Europe aren't anywhere near as obese as we are in the UK then why can't we do anything about it? Finland used to be massively fat, now it's 8% less than the UK.

I don't think it's that significant that your perception of "younger" people out in lycra is a more common sight. When I was a kid I was out the door in the morning and didn't come back until it was tea time. When do you ever see kids outside these days? Very, very rarely. So these "young" people are probably not doing much more than making up the time they didn't spend outdoors when they were younger. Will this affect obesity? Not if we continue to have the same amount of terrible fast food places and generally bad food for sale everywhere. The diet is probably the biggest issue in the UK, rather than lack of exercise, although that is also very low.

Also if you look around the "young" people of today I still see a staggering amount of them in an absolutely shocking state. There might be more "younger" people being more active these days, but I still don't think they're anything close to the majority.

[Sponsored content]