On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 10:35:59 +0000, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
I understand your point of view. Especially, I think, if you were
specifically listening to that item and wanting to learn about the
information it might contain and were more interested in this than
some of the other topics covered by that edition of Today.
Again, I had the luxury of listening to it at a convenient time plus
being able to take your points on board and then listen again today to
ask myself why I thought it went okay.
I'm not going to say "Two points" like Professor Pollard: firstly
because like a lot of people I'm not always good at prefacing each
point with a number or a letter and I'm more likely to judge where the
points begin and end by the content and the context than the
cataloguing. And B)(See what I did there?) I'm just as interested in
why I thought it was okay as in why you thought it wasn't.
He started by saying that he wanted to look at two aspects: the first
about infection, the other about severe disease and that he wanted to
take severe disease first. Before the interruption he actually
covered, I think, five factors and the last two were about mutations
and spike proteins (which as a non-specialist in that sphere I took to
be his points about infection) and then he stopped. His last word was
spoken on a downturn, he paused - perhaps to allow what he had said to
sink in - and it sounded to me as if he had finished so I can't really
blame the interviewer if they had thought the same, presumed that he
had finished and tried to come in there with the next question.
I know you were disappointed and I understand why and you know that I
take a different view but it would be interesting to know what other
readers of this newsgroup think - if indeed there still are any other