bbew

7 minutes ago, Riaz said:

The new variant hasnt killed anyone. Anywhere. Let that sink in.

It has, and it will, but that is what I am saying, if we cancel the game now we will need to cancel for all the winter.

11 minutes ago, Riaz said:

Why????

Because rates are likely to be pretty high over the winter months before dropping back down. More players are going to be getting covid in these months and it is a riskier period for the fans to attend.

If Saturdays game is postponed, it is quite likely every game until March time will also have to be postponed. 

I can understand those that are older,  have health conditions, or just being cautious not attending - it makes sense in many cases and is something I have considered, and in an ideal world the club would offer a refund, but it is a very tricky situation.

The rates were always going to increase at this time of year (as they will next year,  and every year after), and the new variant has obviously increased this, so the club cannot win either way.

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

All year we didn't have the new variant.

Viruses change so the science changes and the advice changes.

Remember a few years back we were all told that diesel cars were what we should be buying...

The trouble with this analogy is that anyone with any sense at the time new that diesel cars were not particularly good for the environment. 

It is hardly therefore a shock the change of attitudes to diesel cars now, likewise it is hardly a shock there is a new variant, it is hardly a shock the NHS is extremely busy in winter, it won't be a shock there will be a new variant in the future, and it won't be a shock that the NHS will be massively busy next winter.  Some people were saying 5 months ago that the NHS having 5,000 fewer beds this winter is not the best idea, but lets wait until it rains until we buy an umbrella.   

So with the MPs vote tomorrow, is anyone aware of any evidence being published to show the benefits the measures will have?  The likely scenarios with and without the measures?  The last evidence I was aware of was the Scottish report showing these measures did not really make a difference, and in Wales they said there is no evidence they make a difference, but make people feel safer.

As Savid Javid previously said "if we're going to pretty much take away people's freedom, you've got to have a really good reason to do it", so surely for such an important vote it cannot just be based on MPs voting based on their own assumptions.

It seems currently like the MPs are part of a jury, and are being encouraged to vote guilty just because the defendant looks a bit rough and crime rates are going up in the area, so better safe than sorry.

I often wonder what the benefits to peoples health would have been if the government and scientific advisors had used half as much effort encouraging people to get fit and healthy that they used in warning people of the dangers of covid, and the fear this has had on so many.

We know 1 million people get admitted to hospital each year (2,700 a day) where being overweight is a factor, and we know covid disproportionately effects those that are overweight - but not a whisper.

What huge benefits to peoples health there could have been if Boris or Chris Whitty just took 20 seconds during a press conference to encourage people to see a doctor if they have concerns about their health (and encourage those that are not visiting a doctor as are scared to catch covid or be a burden on the NHS), given we know advanced stages of cancer, heart disease and strokes are through the roof - not a whisper.

21 minutes ago, phantom said:

A simple lateral flow test... No need for any vaccinations 

For now.  Then they will follow the lead of other countries and make people pay for the tests, and make it so impractical such as having to register a test days before going to a shop.

The bit that is still seems to make no sense, but that the media does not seem to be questioning, is the reason for any further restrictions - because there could be 1,000 covid hospitalisations a day.

The sage models from a few months back predicted a best case scenario of about 1,800 admissions a day.  The worst case scenario of about 50,000 admissions a day, and a most likely scenario of about 7,000 admissions a day.

 So how can the trigger point for new restrictions be due a a position that is so much better the even the best case prediction?

It seems to me that covid is being used as the reason to cover the general bad state the NHS is in, and politicians will introduce any measure, irrespective of of small a difference it may may, as the NHS is so near tipping point anyhow.

Over 20% of people in Southmead are classed as bed blockers.  They do not actually need to be in hospital but are struggling to find anywhere to go, partially as a result of not enough places in care home due to lack of staff (made even worse by up to 60,000 being sacked to due vaccine policies in the UK).

This then leads to ambulances being parked up outside the hospital with patients in.  They are waiting for beds to become free and also as covid policy means they cannot now stay in corridors as they would in the past.

This then means that 999 calls cannot be attended to.  This is the most frightening thing about this, and anyone who has watched the BBC programme ambulance will know the pressures the ambulance services are under.

The thought that in the UK you can ring an ambulance and it not turn up for over 5 hours is something that is frightening and shows who much further investment/change in policy is required in the NHS.

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

But have you considered where we could have been without the restrictions?  

There were serious predictions of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths if nothing was done.  The vaccines will have helped, as have the restrictions to an extent.  

It’s a right pain in the arse and we’re all getting sick of it, but the restrictions are minor compared with last Christmas, so there have been massive improvements over the last year.

The consequences of having or not having restrictions could be debated forever.  All most people who questioned them wanted however was a cost benefit analysis. 

We now know an estimated 740,000 possible cancer cases have been missed.  Many of these because since lockdown there have been 36 million fewer doctors consultations.  So may have been scared to get checked out as they didn't want to risk catching covid or being a burden on the NHS. 

Again, the 400,000 to 500,000 deaths prediction and the basis of this could be debated forever.  We should also never forget the initial panic back in March 2020 and very few would question the initial lockdown when so much was uncertain.

You do have to bear in mind however this prediction was made by the same person who predicted:

2001 - 150,000 deaths from foot and mouth - actual <200

2002 - 50,000 deaths from BSE - actual 177

2005 - 150,000,000 deaths from bird flu - actual 282

2009 - 65,000 deaths from swine flu - actual 457

1 hour ago, red panda said:

PLEASE stop using this football forum to defend false information about vaccinations.

You posted about a story on GB News.  You might not have realised this was based on a dodgy study.  But PLEASE just accept that this story is just scaremongering and stop trying to defend your original post.

I'll declare my interest as, even though I have a full-time job in the public sector, I give up some of my time most weekends to volunteer at local vaccination centres.  I do this because very very strongly believe in the benefits of the vaccination programme for the people getting vaccinated and for their families, friends and also for other people they encounter on a completely random basis.  I have nothing but contempt for people who undermine this programme by helping to spread false information.

In these days "on terrestrial television" means absolutely nothing.  Russia Today and Al Jazeera TV are other terrestrial TV channels.  Some might argue they are more trustworthy than GB News.

PLEASE just accept that the story you highlighted was not reliable

I agree with many of your comments, and thank you for your hard work as the vaccination drive in this country has been fantastic and saved thousands of lives, and could not have been done without people like you.

All my original post was saying was that there is an increase in people suffering cardiac problems and this needs to be looked into what is causing this.  I even stated in my original message how the title of the link was not entirely accurate and I said there could be so many reasons.

I feel like many people are completely unaware of the rise in health problems,  people seemed to be saying that it is just we are more aware of them now, which may be the true of incidents in stadiums, but does not explain the rises in the population as a whole.

4 hours ago, steveybadger said:

 

43 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

36 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television - it's hardly David Icke saying 1 + 1 = 500.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know he risks.

36 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television - it's hardly David Icke saying 1 + 1 = 500.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.

There could be any different number of reasons for this, but it does seem there is a an increase of cardiac related situations at stadiums, which mirror an increase in society as a whole.

The report on GB News is a little concerning in that it doesn't even seem to be being looked into. It's not something that can just be swept under the carpet, whether it is covid related, vaccine related, a result of lifestyle over the last couple of years, or lack of people getting earlier diagnosis.

(The title of the article below is maybe a little misleading. The researcher does say there could be many reasons, and not just the vaccine)

Genuine questions here, and I do not want to detract from the seriousness of covid. 

Given covid will be around forever, and variants will be around forever - are people happy that this is how we live our life now forever?

Every winter as cases increase or there is a new variant pressure for new restrictions. We get a few normal months in the summer, and then when rates go up, restrictions come in, travel restrictions, mask wearing, and people scared.

I am not saying these measures are wrong, I just don't see what the end game is?

We have done so well and have such high vaccination rates, that it almost feels like it was sort of pointless (I don't mean pointless as obviously thousands of lifes have been saved, but in terms of the end game and living normally)

In 5 years time after the 10th booster, another variant emerges and back to square one and another press conference to say we need to be more careful again as the vaccine needs adjusting.  I just wondered peoples thoughts?

Are people genuinely happy to wear masks forever, as wearing one for 5 mins in a shop is no bother, but for those that wear for 8 hours a day they are pretty damn horrid.

4 hours ago, foghornred said:

Get well soon Nigel but please be more carful next time catching it once is forgivable but twice is carless, you obviously dont follow the rules- wear a mask and wash your hands always !

I hope this is a joke - you do realise a face mask is not a force field! Your comments are a little insensitive to the 9 million people in the UK who have had covid -  to suggest it is their fault!

Get well soon Nigel, really hope you are fighting fit again soon.

I thought their fans were top class and put us to shame. I am trying to think of a louder home crowd for quite some years.  During the game I had the same feeling I had after the play off defeat, when again the atmosphere was so poor - do we really deserve success as a football club when our fans often can't be bothered to make any noise!?  Even in the first half we had throw ins in good attacking positions and there was no roar of encouragement at all. Maybe we just know by now that our attacking throws often just result in the opposition counter attacking!

7 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

His previous bout of it shouldn't have any bearing on how bad he gets it this time.  The anitbodies acquired last summer would have disappeared by now.  I believe they last up to 8 months.  The double jab should help, however.  What is slightly worrying is that he was available to sign for us earlier in the year because prior to that he didn't feel well enough to do a job...

His antibodies may have reduced, but T Cell mmunity should help as is the body's way of remembering how to fight infections

50 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

That is a fair point tbh. Having a fully vaccinated crowd doesn't mean half of them dont have the virus, I guess it's just that if anyone did have it the symptoms would be less noticable, the viral load they are spreading is  greatly reduced etc. its a lower risk

Now clearly we need to trust the scientists here - but just from an uneducated point of view:

If someone has not had the vaccine, as you say they would have more symptoms, more viral load and more likely to spread.  But surely in that case they would probably (hopefully) not attend a football match?

Those that are vaccinated are less likely to show symptoms (and spread), but they are more likely to still attend.

So are you not more likely to be sat next to a vaccinated person with covid than an unvaccinated person with covid?

There has been so much talk about asymptomatic spread, and how we should almost assume everyone has the virus, but are we now moving into this situation?

For reference - I have had the jab, I encourage others to have the jab, but it is just something that does not seem to get mentioned.     

6 hours ago, sinenomine said:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/17/doctor-measures-oxygen-levels-show-wearing-mask-doesnt-affect-breathing-13001628/

It's hard to know what to believe half the time, when other videos doing the rounds show they do have an effect (admittedly they are likely not to be by qualified professionals).

I do know that my other half has a splitting headache after wearing a mask after every shift.  Needs must in these times I suppose though.