IAmNick

A few do, out of the millions and millions that don't and are very quietly forgotten. I'm struggling to think of anything even approaching this scale though - that's the problem with a conspiracy. People are pretty useless! It's just like when you read the betting threads on here and everyone is up for the year, and the last few years too in fact. We've probably got about 100 forgotten conspiracy theories since covid started already!

But if you have no idea, the problem is you can and will point at anything and everything as some kind of step towards your undefined end state. I'm confused why all these countries would band together to do this, and why the companies/universities who make their money from healing sick people would want to reduce the number of people there are. Our government is pretty good at taking our rights away regardless if it wants to. Now if you said they have at times used this as a slight excuse to push other legislation they wanted through I might agree - but it's a one way process for me. They're not then making things seem worse to then get even more through. Again, if you think the above isn't a conspiracy theory, and you're not a conspiracy theorist, I suggest you look up the definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable" Check! "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[8][12] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven." Check! "Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account" Check! It's word for word what you say. You need help - and I genuinely mean that. Don't fall down this rabbit hole too far as you'll never get out.

Main problem is imo that it's a lot easier to throw these claims out without a shred of evidence than it is to refute them, which takes time and in quite a few cases specialist knowledge. By the point you get there, they've moved on to the next thing anyway. Eventually they just land at some nebulous impossible to prove one way or the other point about "media fear" or "control" and think they've won. I have a real interest in reading about conspiracy theories and cults and how they form, and it's a super common theme. I think most people know few healthy under 60s are dying, but they also understand there's a bigger picture. I didn't bother responding as you admitted you had based your posts that the jabs would sterilize people off literally nothing. It's like me saying "I think the jab will at some point in the future turn everyone's index finger purple!". Totally meaningless. That's not free thinking. The irony of you posting that crap, which is incredibly emotive without a SHRED of evidence while whinging all the time about "the media" and "fearmongering" is staggering. What's the government agenda?

I'm a bit confused. Wasn't that just predicting that thanks to the jabs we'd hopefully be out of full lockdown by march which is basically what happened? The age groups were just from the first phase right as it says? Jabbing the rest was phase 2. I don't understand why posting almost a year old articles means anything. It'd be like blindly still starting a player every game now just because there were looking good in January. Things change as new info comes to light. You have to adapt. Picking one route and following it no matter what would be insanity, no? But the majority of the restrictions from when that article was posted (full national lockdown) were dropped for the last 9 months or so, so that's the opposite isn't it? Unless your point is that covid passes are now seen as more useful when the vast majority of the population can use them, compared to a few % back then.

It's futile, even thought it saves thousands of lives? Everything is a stall in life, that's just reality. I totally agree that the government need to get a handle on the obesity crisis in the country - but look at the fuss that was made around the sugar tax! What I'm saying is though we've needed something to have an impact now, which are the jabs. Maybe they do just buy us more time while we work out better, longer term solutions (OR decide we just don't bother any more!) Your point about being forced to eat a donut is interesting - literally no perhaps, but obesity does has a correlation with wealth. Due to lack of time, education, or willpower many people unfortunately choose the easiest route to get what they want - and it's incredibly difficult to change that. We all go through those periods in our lives There's a reason you see those people you mention gathered around spoons, and not around a fancy Clifton brasserie. It's an extremely complex issue!

Have the government already not collated a lot of statistics on who are most vulnerable, numbers per age group/race and so on? That informed the vaccine rollouts and so on I thought. I'm suspicious if they did produce it whether people would actually believe it personally. Just look at the arguments we have in here already.

I swear some people are being wilfully ignorant at this point. This has been explained so many times. But many people are scared of the flu. We put millions and millions into developing vaccines each year, which millions and millions take. In a particularly bad year it can have a huge impact on our health services as you're not doubt aware. Flu is also a lot less contagious, so is less likely to overwhelm our healthcare services. Flu is also a lot better understood, so is less of a concern. Maybe I'm missing your point? So you are against authoritarian measures like showing a smartphone app to enter a football match or wear a mask. But you would perhaps support the government deciding what we eat, exercise and so on? The problem is that you are talking about problems that will take years, decades to fix. They're totally ingrained in every part of our society - we need solutions NOW. So in amongst all your complaining about society - the sheep, the obese, the unhealthy, are you willing to add something to society or change your own situation by getting the jab or showing the vaccine passport?

Very telling you're so confused that people made a non political judgement of what to do. I despise Boris, but that's completely separate from whether I agree with the restrictions. That's guided by the data and science. But you ARE a conspiracy theorist. Remember these from a few months ago? PLEASE explain to me how that's "thinking for yourself", and not just repeating tired conspiracy theories. You're just blindly believing stuff from another source. Going against the prevailing opinion is nothing to be proud of, nor any sign that you've thought more.

Why, out of interest? They've got better since the start (full on lockdown multiple times) up until now in general. If anything I think people are getting less happy with them and they're coming under increased scrutiny as time goes on as well, rather than being more accepting. At what point do you think someone's personal decision, which can impact society around them, should affect their ability to access it? It's a difficult question for sure. We already have many rules in our society and things you have to do to be able to live and work in it - we just take them for granted as they've always been here.

I thought GJs football was uncultured but still sometimes exciting to watch personally. Going to AG was at least more enjoyable for a year or two during that period than any time since, only Cotts L1 season might match it. Your hero DW would have had to get us promoted to the Championship first before he could even think about the PL though so not sure why you're mentioning him

But how can you decide that before you know both sides of the discussion? Obviously if they said a nationwide lockdown would prevent one death, I'd be against it. If they said a nationwide lockdown would prevent 1 million, I'd be for it. It seems to me that you (and some others) have already decided where you stand without having the information - which is why I'm saying it's situational. Picking one approach and refusing to budge from is it absolutely mad, and not how we live our lives in any other way either.,

I think it's an interesting comparison/question. If Martin has come into a club already set up how he wants to some degree, with a decent number of appropriate tools at his disposal, and yet is doing no better than Pearson where it matters I don't know if I'd prefer that. You have to think longer term - it implies to me that we might have a higher ceiling, and Pearson has more to change to be where he wants. I don't actually care that much about the style of football while we're at the very start of our transition... I more care about our destination. Yeah it'd be nice to see it along the way, but not at the expense of what we're trying to do. I think that's partly where Lee fell down - wanting to have his cake and eat it too... or rather not a clear idea of what the "now" and the "future" need to look like, and how they differ. Gotta say I'm also a bit sick of the thought that slow, possession, and passing based football is the summit we all should strive for. Quick, direct, aggressive, attacking football can be really exciting (dare I say it sometimes Cardiff at this level as an example) - much more than some other styles.

But there are already non MRNA vaccines aren't there? As far as I know the AstraZenica one isn't. Neither is the Johnson and Johnson one - that's a standard viral vector I think. Why would Valneva be any different? Sounds a bit like you've just picked one that isn't in the current plans to me. It's the same people saying they're safe in each case. The individuals to be "won over" have no special knowledge of vaccines they could use to form a reasoned opinion - they're not experts.

What would your plan be?

Well if it could have a devastating impact on us then yeah. Wouldn't you? Would you rather just do nothing at all from now on, and if we get totally screwed over then so be it?

It's not at all. Cancer is a great example of an awful disease that kills people - but rarely is what actually kills them. Take a cancer of the digestive system. It stops you absorbing food, so you die of malnutrition (or weakness due to it). Liver cancer can and will screw up the chemical balance in your body. If you get shot and as a result have a heart attack and die, did being shot kill you? If you get covid, develop pnuemonia, are greatly weakened and die of infection did covid kill you? As I said, it's not as simple as you're making out. The problem is you're looking for a very simple answer to an extremely complex question - which says a lot about how you view this whole thing. Right now, I think in a couple of months we should have a much clearer picture the impact Omicron will have so that seems like a sensible amount of time to review things. That could then be to continue restrictions, step them up, or remove them. Like I said, I don't enjoy the restrictions at all. I really don't - but I do understand why they're there.

What restrictions? Showing my phone before a game or whatever? I don't like it, but I get why it's there. I'd obviously rather none at all as we all would... I don't enjoy any of them. If it's a small thing I can do to help society then I'll do it. It's no skin off my back really. I went to an awards do in London a couple of weeks ago which required it, it was dead easy. As to how long, it depends on what's going on - it's highly situational. I don't have a set time or whatever. With this new variant it seems sensible to increase them until we understand it and the impact it'll have more... the risk is not doing that, and then it's too late.

If it's so simple it's odd you can't explain it! Many diseases greatly weaken us, but it's something else that actually kills us. It's not black and white like you're implying. That's why none of these numbers and metrics are perfect, but you can look at them together and get a decent picture of things.

Hah - you asked the question, and sounds like you have no idea at all what you're actually asking for.

What do you count as "of"? If someone has cancer, is greatly weakened, and dies of a simple infection is that a cancer death or not? Do you literally have to be killed by the thing for it to matter - or if it weakens you (or contributes significantly) is that enough? What's the line?

Oh come on, I really don't believe the majority of "hesitant" people are because of the tech. No doubt they take, or are given all kinds of other medication, drugs, and put god knows what else in their body which they have absolutely no idea what they are, or the maturity of the tech behind it. Do they know what the chicken the guzzle down in KFC is washed with? What's in their cigarettes? It's an excuse for many to make it sound like they have a legit reason. They didn't want it before they even know what MRNA was. The vaccines and the tech/.knowledge behind them is incredibly complicated. A layman on the street like your or I has no idea the research, method, and efficacy of them. That would take years of complex study - which is why we have a lot of extremely intelligent people who do that for their entire lives for us.

City second (James): https://streamja.com/zPRyB

There's no way Tanner should have let their striker get the original shot away imo

Hull second: https://streamja.com/59QA0

We're currently decent value for a draw away at the team top of the form table. This would be 2 wins and 2 draws in the last 5. Chill. We're doing OK today.