italian dave

Sadly though, if he’s asked to leave that will probably reduce his value.

I share that concern about the defence. We failed to pick up runners, gave away sill free kicks (in positions we conceded from so many times last year), failed to be first to the ball, and got away with it because they weren’t great in the final third. Against better sides we’d have been punished.

Are you trying to spoil my evening?!! As if reminders of Ashton and Rolls weren’t enough, up pops Russell Osman ?

I guess the risk for the club is that those three bums on seats, buying their pies and pints, and going to the toilet, results in 30 fewer bums on seats etc the next game, because they're at home with covid. But I doubt they'll see it like that! You'd have thought it possible to restrict access codes to streaming to those who've got match tickets - but I can see that gets time consuming and like you cant see restrictions being lifted otherwise.

Fair play….s/he can’t be accused of not putting their money where their mouth is.

They’d put him in their hall of fame for that.

Mmmmmm……compulsory vaccination….now there’s an idea ??

A couple of newspaper headline this today - not sure whether there's anything in it, or it belongs in the 'irresponsible headlines' thread?

I like the idea of an anti-vaxxers section towards which, even into which, Nakhi Wells could run to celebrate scoring.

I think that if you're going to do anything like this then it needs to be done with clarity, transparency and clear data-driven rationale. Otherwise it will cause misunderstanding, confusion and will never get public consensus. And I agree with you (and @Baba Yaga) about the complete lack of any of those things from our government. Its just been yet another example of policy being made up as they go along, knee jerk response, constant u-turns, with no clear strategy. There are probably three reasons for having vaccine passports (and I'm not arguing for or against here, just setting out what the case might be): - short term as an alternative to tighter restrictions: we can open this up but there's a risk so the only way we can do it safely is to use passports - short term as amends of incentivising vaccinations: this is a public health imperative and if you go along with it you make the country safer and you get something out of it as a direct result - long term as a means of controlling an infectious disease: where the data supports the very clear benefits, ie with them the virus stops spreading, without them it doesn't. Seems to me that it's far too early for the last of those, not least because the data isn't even available, let alone clear. I give you two scenarios, both starting where we were a month or two ago: 1. We hope that we will be able to relax restrictions in July. We're confident we'll be able to do so as long as cases don't rise. As cases start to rise the message becomes more cautious: the data is highlighting the risks of opening up too quickly, we need to go forward cautiously and we're looking at whether its sensible to relax restrictions and at other measures that might be necessary, including vaccine passports. As numbers continue to rise: we are still confident vaccines are helping keep this under control but given the rise in cases, hospitalisations etc we don't want to relax everything as completely as we'd intended. However, we can still take that a significant step with the reassurance that other measures, including vaccine passports in the short term, will give us. 2. Freedom Day will happen in July and it will be irreversible. We're aware the numbers are continuing to rise but vaccines vaccines vaccines. We have no plans for vaccine passports. And when the day arrives, with continuing rises in cases, along with the challenge that scientists are warning this is at best risky and irresponsible, I need to manage this news conference - so I'll suggest that we're going to introduce vaccine passports, even though we haven't really thought it through and we'll need to backtrack and obfuscate in a few hours time. No surprise when the UK, using the second approach, finds people confused and angry.

By all accounts we won't be here to do so....sorry! Riaz - I always had you down as a bit of a Corbyn-ista. Seems like I was right and wrong - I just had the wrong one in mind!

I’m talking about the choices we make. And the consequences they have.

Commit a crime, or breach a regulation. Yes, of course, that’s how governments work, that’s how society implements its constraints. Whether it’s in China or here - the laws might be different but the principle is the same.

You evidently have more knowledge of China than I do. But it’s also the way society works here. Sometimes by mandate; you’re not free to drive on the right. Sometimes by prohibition if you choose not to comply: driving with poor eyesight, even if, for example, you could have had it corrected by treatment but chose not to because it involved injecting chemicals. I didn’t want to have my European citizenship taken away from me, or be deprived of my right to travel in Europe, but it’s happened because society mandated it by the election of Bozo.

In the UK you are punished if you don’t comply with what the government wants.

Well, several people have already had a go, but in the hope you’ll take notice of at least one. Thats based on the yellow card reporting scheme. Anyone can go through that scheme and report anything that they think happens to them after they’ve had the vaccine. Some people evidently take that very literally and report things that are blatantly unconnected. Others report things that almost certainly have no causal link. And other report minor inconveniences like the sore arm that probably 99% of all those getting the vaccine experience. A tiny proportion record what may or may not be more serious consequences. Now, for the third time of asking, are you seriously suggesting that pregnancy, redundancy and insect bites are among the consequences of vaccination? And, subsidiary question, is a sore arm really a reason for not getting a vaccination?

Oh please……. I respect your right to your view on taking vaccines. But you are just peddling dangerous and untrue nonsense with this. I’m still waiting for you to explain the pregnancy, redundancy and insect bite consequences to having the vaccination.

That’s the way society works.

Actually, you’ve shared 20 things from Geert Vanden Bossche and two things from government websites. Of the latter, one you have entirely misunderstood or, more likely, deliberately misused. The second makes precisely the point you seem to be arguing against, namely that until you get sufficient numbers of people vaccinated (regardless of vulnerability) the there’s a high risk of mutation. Dr Bossche, incidentally, trained in veterinary medicine and you can read about him here https://perma.cc/69AE-D6GL

But there is a reason for trying to make everyone have it and that is - as has been touched on - unless you get sufficient people vaccinated to stop exponential transmission (ie keep the R0 below 1) then it will keep spreading and the risk of further lockdowns etc goes with that. The best chance of getting back to 'normal', and of ending the need for restrictions is directly related to the number of people getting the vaccine.

So a) you're evidently of the Johnson "anyone over 80 doesn't really matter" view, only taking it that much further b) haven't fully read the small item you've circled: "The deaths aren't necessarily caused by the vaccine though" I really don't know why this has to keep being pointed out, but if you base your view on what's recorded on the yellow card scheme, then you'll believe that the vaccine can get you pregnant, give you insect bites, make you redundant and a whole manner of other things.

Indeed....you might even conclude that the vaccine will keep you alive longer!!

Evidence?

I don't think this is about opinions, its about decisions and actions (although clearly there's a link). I'm aware that there are risks associated with the vaccine. I certainly don't believe in it 100%. I don't really like the idea of passports more generally, my opinion is we shouldn't have to have them, but I choose to have one. Just as people choose to drive on the left, wear helmets on a motorbike etc. So, to answer your question: 1. Because I've done what society has asked me to do in order to help us collectively overcome this pandemic, and you haven't. 2. Because if I'm wrong then you're no worse off. If you're wrong you could kill or seriously disable me.