You understand absolutely nothing. Covid vaccines had Phase 3 trials that were *twenty times larger* than standard Phase 3 trials. 40,000 participants as opposed to the normal 2,000.

Moderna is doing truly fantastic work with its vaccines. For example, this:
https://www.clinicaltrialsaren...

A near halving of melanoma recurrence and death.

mRNA vaccines have incredible potential in so many areas, including for example, melanoma. And Moderna was at the forefront. We are giving up a future of so much promise through capitulating to a demented fool, his malignant health secretary, and an enormous bunch of bastard evil grifters.

https://www.clinicaltrialsaren...

I’m on Mounjaro, and there have basically been zero significant side effects. I had a couple of bouts of loose stools after eating too much high fat food, there’s been a couple of times when I’ve been light headed from not paying attention to low blood sugar because I’ve not felt hungry, and one time my leg felt weird after I’d injected, but that’s been the sum total. I started at 82kg, I’m now at 74kg despite being unable to do my normal exercise due to eye surgery. It’s been great.

They have somewhat different titration schedules despite the same active ingredient, due to addressing different-but-tightly-related conditions.

Sure. I just wanted to point out that other data exist, it's not all about that autoinsuranceez.com report.

I personally think Arup over-baked that statement, and that there are good reasons to expect that EVs won't see the rate of increase of fires with ageing that ICE vehicles do. ICE vehicles see this strongly increasing risk with age driven by many independent failure modes that cause an increase in both leak probability and ignition probability. These failures tend to be gradual, cumulative and undetected. EVs are likely to see a flat to mildly increasing risk with age, dominated by battery condition and abuse history, with fewer independent ignition pathways, and with many of the failure modes being binary and monitored in one sealed subsystem. The absence of circulating liquid fuel and hot engine surfaces inherently reduces the hazards.

For ICE you have several strongly rising risks with age: fuel line leaks, oil leaks onto hot surfaces, and engine bay thermal stress, plus moderately rising risks such as exhaust/converter overheating, ignition system faults and fuel vapour system failures. Many of these age indepedently but coexist spatially.
For EVs, you have battery short circuits, dendrite formation, and separator degradation, all of which are slowly rising risks, plus thermal management failures, mechanical battery damage accumulation and high-voltage insulation degradation, all rising very slowly. These are really driven by misuse, damage or thermal mismanagement, rather than age alone.

So as I say, I expect these risks to rise substantially more slowly for EVs than for ICE. Empirical data will come in over the years ahead, but I'm pretty confident on this.

For what it's worth, I think the bans are largely the results of people being anxious about new tech, which is something we've seen many times over the years. Mobile phones and head / neck cancer, for example.

Jesus fuck, was this really your response? This is what you consider an effective rejoinder?

*Obviously*, NCM fires are harder to put out than LFP fires, but they are so rare it that the overall risk is much lower than for ICE. Risk = frequency times severity. This is extremely well rehearsed by now. You know it. I know it. The dogs in the street know it.

Also, if your device isn't running on an NCM battery, it will be a lithium cobalt oxide or a lithium polymer battery, both of which have a *higher fire risk* than NCM, you oaf.

Finally: you are apparently unaware of what the word "if" means. I didn't call for a ban on vehicles on the basis of fire risk, which is a stupid fucking thing to do, I pointed out that your ban was starting with a lower risk category and that was stupid. Yet you somehow choose an idiotic misinterpretation of this as being my calling for a ban and argue with that ridiculous strawman instead. In public. For all to see. What a life you lead.

I have no idea what caused you to leap off the deep end and post in this way, but you should really get a fucking grip.

Also, this is about Germany, where zoning is not the same thing as the US at all, and where most housing does not require a car, because active and public transport options are excellent and there's lots of local amenities.

That would work if the only externalities of ICE vehicles that were not priced in were carbon. But tailpipe emissions and noise are also massively harmful, and should not be ignored.

Then you've just not looked at that many reports. Here's guidelines for covered car parks from the UK government commissioned from Arup, an engineering group. It has a whole section on frequency, and none of the data are from the source you mention; they're from the UK and Norway instead, and focused on vehicles on the road.

https://assets.publishing.serv...

Are you *really* trying to claim that it's just a myth that EVs have lower fire rates than ICE vehicles? Is that truly a hill you're going to die on?

Tiresome stupid bullshit. NCMs still catch fire much less frequently than ICE vehicles, and I'll bet you typed your demand to ban NCMs on a device powered by an NCM. If we're banning things because they're too quick to burn, ban fucking ICE vehicles first.

Insurrection Act, ICE at polling stations, straight up cheating if you’re unscrupulous and dead set on keeping your hands on power, and you have access to large amounts of power and no-one is standing in your way, quite a lot becomes possible.

It will for sure be from the inside-out. I have said for some time that he’s Shitler: full of malice but less competent. But possessed of far more potential power.

I think we’re not actually disagreeing on much here. My figures were based on 1.2 to 1.5tn of domestic spend and 0.22 of international spend, hence 6 to 1.

Sure, international tourism is way, way less important than domestic tourism or inflation. I just don’t think it’s nothing, especially given regional concentrations. And I neither think that the greater marginal impact of international tourism compared to domestic is good nor bad, it just is what it is. It’s a description, rather than a moral judgement. Policy choices that will be affected by that fact can be good or bad, eg “let’s make ourselves attractive or unattractive to the outside world”.

Ha! I’d love to know which parts of this he considers impossible due to an immutable law of nature in Canada, because this is what he responded to, to say “it doesn’t work that way here”:

“Everyone gets to shop and park and charge wherever they like. They may pay a premium for combining those, or they may pay a discount. Depends on how the supermarket and charger companies decide they want to run their businesses.

When I go to see my son in Durham, I have a choice of a hotel with a charger in its car park, a hotel with a charger on the street outside its car park, or other hotels without charging and using chargers en route. I choose the hotel with the parking & charging on the street outside because it’s the best hotel out of a very uninspiring selection. And sometimes I charge at the hotel and sometimes en route. Lots of options, and it doesn’t really matter, the car can manage whichever way I do it.”