StringJunky

You took what she was referring to totally out of context. I see no hypocrisy. Two different areas of application. Read this properly and what she's referring to: "Nationalism is no ally in this battle without borders" She's referring to disease and how it is indiscriminately crossing international boundaries. Nationalism is impotent in this case.

Yes, the WH wants to control the narrative... like several countries elsewhere.

No, googled it. That's why I said to do a sample first.

This is the nature of conformation bias: it means one is putting blinders on from the start. For those that don't know what 'blinders are: they are eye covers put on horses that restricts their side vision so that they can only see what is in front of them.

Try 10% varnish in a sample that has the same solvent-type as the paint.

This is my take. I have never seen the word applied literally. It is always used currently from a perspective of criticism. Definitions are fluid through time and it's the contemporary use that is relevant.

OK.

If you can smell smoke inside the particles are getting in, I would have thought. If someone actually smoked in a room, that would deposit condensed vapour on the surfaces, which would emit an odour and that would linger for a long time.

Cheers Mordred.

No prob. I did think of WW2 initially but thought Spanish Flu around WW1 was more appropriate.

It's affected the whole effing world. It was an of-the-cuff suggestion to prevent us forgetting. Nobody born post WW1 has seen a global crisis like this.

Funny.

One needs to consider modern usage rather than vanilla definitions. See what I did there?

I thought momentum from the fan pushing the boat backwards would be cancelled by the momentum imparted on the sail from the airflow going the other way. leading to no net motion.

"Alarmist" is used by people who don't believe a threat is real; with dismissive connotations.

There should be 'war' memorials dotted in town centres saying "Lest We Forget - COVID19"

OK. Ta.

Do you think bringing everybody home from other countries exacerbated the spread? Wouldn't it be better for control if each country was responsible for all citizens in their place at the time an emergency is declared? Or is that an ethical minefield?

I read the AP account earlier. It's a damning indictment. The present administration is as bad as the Russian one.

I think it's the difference, when embarking on research, between working from an assertion and working from a question. In the former, one will likely seek data that confirms ones assertion, with all the confirmation bias that makes one vulnerable to. When one researches from a questioning perspective, one is more likely to consider all the data, and see how that goes... with no preconceptions. An example might be: "All swans are white" vs "Are all swans white?".

How about it might be pragmatism and humanitarianism rising above ideology?

Did she not open the German borders to hundreds of thousands?

That article is nine years old and her actions later clearly contradict that stance.

Einstein's statement is not binary; it is not either/or.

Why? To preserve ethnic bloodlines? I think climate change will facilitate more migration well before that becomes an issue. Japan is facing this issue right now and looking at the options.