132 karma · joined July 13, 2015
It's really hard to see a way out of this for me without extreme interference by government..
And this is a part of why it should be administered by governments and not just let loose to market forces. Homes can't just be built wherever, whenever. It should be meticulously planned and integrated with various public services. There's no real financial incentive to build 100,000 houses in the middle of nowhere, it needs to have schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc. A property developer would rather squash a bunch of apartments or buy some old stock, refit everything and charge a premium.
>It's great until it isn't. Interest rates are rising, and mortgages in the UK are much shorter term than in the US.
They actually suggested recently to offer multi-generational mortgages... That's how crazy the market is getting.
>These are risks that the landlord assumes for me.
Those are risks your landlord should have insurance for. In a world where property isn't such a commodity, those risks don't really have the same meaning or value.
We've largely left house building to the 'market forces' and it is failing us, that is the reality. What happened to the second largest construction firm in the UK? "The largest ever trading liquidation in the UK – which began in January 2018" - Carillion collapsed with £7 billion in liabilities.
"One of the UK's biggest landlords, owns over 1,000 properties, tried to ban 'coloured' people from renting because of the curry smell" - What happens to people that are 'undesirable' to landlords, they need a home too or should they simply be destitute or constantly bounced around the lowest standard of housing stock available?
Rent caps are probably not effective or radical enough to actually solve this crisis. I think if we really want to do something, it's going to hurt a lot of peoples 'net worth'.
This is not reality though. Here in the UK our housing is in major crisis because people simply cannot afford the insane price increases. Pretty much everyone I know shares their living situation, on their own they would not be able to afford basic amenities.
The guardian today published an article showing:
>Average monthly rental payments were now 40% higher than they were 10 years ago, while typical mortgage payments for the same properties were up 13%.
Landlords and property owners are hiking the prices way beyond reasonable value, in some parts of the country rent is up by over 20% in the last year alone. By your logic there should be an incentive for builders to increase the housing stock, but private enterprise aren't building anymore homes now than they were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.
We do however have a situation where the average mortgage is about £900 per month, whereas the average rent has skyrocketed to £1600 per month (£1100 outside of London, £2200 in London). Available rental stock is down 25%, with demand up 5%. It's great for property speculators, buy-to-let landlords and property developers, people are offering above asking prices simply to secure a home.
>My landlord takes all the risk of owning the property (prices don’t always go up after all).
Sure there is risk, but when you charge 30% more than you repay for the mortgage, while at the same time property prices rise 75% in 10 years, it's safe to say that the cash cow is being thoroughly milked for every last drop and as a result many people are suffering.
Ultimately there shouldn't be 'risk', this mindset is a big problem. Homes are a fundamental, basic human need. Using them as an investment method, business model or means to hedge against inflation, is causing rampant speculation and quite honestly extorting people that have no other choice, exploiting vulnerable families that need a home. It should be an extremely tightly controlled market, with sufficient funding to ensure that quality & affordable housing is available for everyone.
Again, after living in rural communities, they largely eat what they can get - which includes a lot of raw fruits and vegetables. Of course meat is important, but no more important than nuts, berries, tubers etc.
In the same vein I wouldn't eat raw beef from a supermarket but high quality beef can be enjoyed as steak tartare without worry, same with sashimi...
Nothing "negative" should happen until you're convicted (perhaps inconvenience), in that you should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If you are a burglar caught in someone elses property there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, however force should not be the first response; if the burglar is cooperative when caught then why should the police use force? If you've been wrongfully arrested and held, compensation should be available. Courts are involved to prove that the accused committed a crime, until judgement is passed the suspect is innocent.
More importantly, how does a financial institution measure the evidence? How do they assure that the individual is involved in the protest? What happens if your money is frozen and you're innocent, if you were wrongfully flagged? Who gets to decide what is considered a level of participation worthy of having your assets frozen?
The crazy part is, even traditional criminals are not treated this harshly. If I was arrested for selling drugs, the only assets that are frozen are those linked to crime. If I have legitimate funds, they're not frozen if I can prove where the money came from. Proceeds of crime are frozen, but regular income is not. You traditionally cannot freeze money or other assets unconnected to a crime. Yet here we are, people are supporting freezing assets regardless of due process or if it is actually linked to or derived from crime. Unbelievable.
However I did already answer this, you arrest people that are breaking the law and charge them with a crime. Unless we're now happy enough to simply let politicians be judge, jury and executioner; targeting citizens as and when they see fit?
If laws are being broken, arrest the perpetrators and charge them with a crime. Follow the judicial process. What is happening here has very little oversight and seems to be an entirely disproportionate response.
You say that institutions have the right to 'not do deals with you', but that's not what's happening. Business is being explicitly instructed not to do business with them, what if they want to offer their services?
It's not simply the 'ability to exercise rights', it is denial of a fundamental aspect of living; being able to transact with your peers. Historically this wouldn't have been such an issue, but as 'non-custodial' money is fast disappearing, it poses risks for all of us.
The report concludes that a high-intake of fructose syrup causes a reduction of beneficial butyrate producing bacteria and a gut microbiota profile that may affect unfavourably host lipid metabolism, whereas high consumption of fructose from fruit seems to modulate the composition of the gut microbiota in a beneficial way supporting digestive health and counteracting harmful effects of excessive fructose.
Besides a high fructose content, the authors note that the high fruit diet was characterised by a relatively high content of fiber. They therefore point out that observed alterations in gut microbiota may at least partially reflect changes driven by a higher intake of fiber rather than changes in response to the high-fructose consumption.
Fibre is an important component of the human diet and has known health benefits including lowering cholesterol and improving blood glucose responses. Dietary fibre as a prebiotic has specific effects on the microbial populations and its function as individual taxa have been shown to selectively metabolise discrete fibre structures.
To me, although I don't really know a lot, it seems quite logical that fruit is generally good for you and quite hard to overeat. We've been consuming fruits for thousands of years and although agriculture may have increased availability and nutritional value, comparing 10g of fructose found in an apple to 10g of fructose found in candy is nonsensical.
Processed food using high fructose corn syrup, is not going to be digested in the same way as an apple.
People who need to isolate should be sent care packages so they don't need to go out to the shop, they should update their status regularly and be given what they need to pay bills.
The young, slim, healthy unvaccinated that you're talking about are such a tiny amount of people that I do not consider myself at any real risk. Like I said, I've not tested positive once the entire pandemic and I suspect that's largely to do with having a good immune system, so will clear the virus naturally, plus taking other sensible measures like wearing masks and avoiding large indoor gatherings.
I take other measures to limit the spread. The vaccine is not a panacea, it helps reduce severity for the most vulnerable so let them take it. The virus can also mutate in vaccinated people, in other mammals, it is hyperbole to suggest unvaccinated are largely responsible for all the negative aspects of Covid, completely politicised. The people that care for me respect my decision and quite honestly at this point agree, the majority of vaccinated people that I know will not be getting boosters.
Regarding health workers, I have 3 cousins and an aunt that all work in healthcare (plus some friends). From a renal nurse, ICU nurse to doctors and radiologist. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but our healthcare system has been at critical levels for years prior to the pandemic. This can only be solved by improving our infrastructure. They all respect peoples right to choose what medical treatment they want to receive. If you want to talk about duty to be respectable, when you do not know me or my contributions, then perhaps you should think about your attitude and moral grandstanding?
As my previous comment highlighted, my country has 63% of adults overweight. America is 68%. Their burden on the health system is immense, far greater than the unvaccinated. Should we ostracise them and limit their access to parts of society for everyone elses benefit? If the population was <40% overweight, we would not be facing the crisis in hospitals.
Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread.. the concern should be giving the vaccine to the vulnerable that need it; the main benefit is reducing severity for them. For everyone else, its main benefit is securing revenue for the leading drug manufacturers.
If I'm unvaccinated and testing negative, then what is the problem?
I'm young, slim, healthy, unvaccinated, not tested positive for Covid once even after my housemates had it.
"There is not a single example of a country with less than 40% of the population overweight that has high death rates (over 10 per 100,000). Similarly, no country with a death rate over 100 per 100,000 had less than 50% of their population overweight"
Are we going to start banning overweight from consuming alcohol and eating fast food? They're putting tremendous pressure on our universal healthcare system, their choice to be unhealthy has an outsized effect on society; specifically the health systems that we are using as a reason to push vaccination on everyone, regardless of their risk category.
Can't you see where this mindset leads us?
"There is not a single example of a country with less than 40% of the population overweight that has high death rates (over 10 per 100 000). Similarly, no country with a death rate over 100 per 100 000 had less than 50% of their population overweight.
When are we going to start banning overweight from consuming alcohol and eating fast food? They're putting tremendous pressure on our universal healthcare system!
Yes we have a social contract. Yes people take measures such as seatbelts and helmets. No, neither of those are the same as mandating individuals to take a vaccine that has limited benefit for the majority of people. Following a year long media campaign of fear, after accepting lockdowns, the only supposed solution is taking a vaccine that has been sped through clinical trials and at best serves to reduce the severity for those most at risk from Covid.
I see pure coercion. How long before access to the majority of vital services will be dependant on 'up to date' vaccination status, checked and logged in via your app whenever you travel, shop, work. How long before this turns into a social credit system?
Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now.
The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.
Pharmaceutical companies are reaping vast profits without adequate independent scrutiny of their scientific claims. The purpose of regulators is not to dance to the tune of rich global corporations and enrich them further; it is to protect the health of their populations. We need complete data transparency for all studies, we need it in the public interest, and we need it now.
The Center for COVID Control expanded so rapidly that it became unable to keep up with the thousands of tests sent its way — leading to workers leaving tests in garbage bags, unrefrigerated, around the office and lying to customers about their results, former employees said.