IAmNick

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.

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unsure I agree. I think there are a range of reasons and motives behind vaccine hesitancy.

I also stand by my view that a chunk of them albeit unsure how many, could be won over by eg Valneva.

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.

6 minutes ago, big p said:

Thought so, Jesus!

What would your plan be?

6 minutes ago, big p said:

So if the situation where there's a new variant evolved in 2 years and the government said it "might "be nasty. You would still be happy under restrictions such as lockdown?

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?

5 minutes ago, big p said:

Complete madness.

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.

2 minutes ago, big p said:

Answer the question then. How longwill you tolerate the government imposing restrictions  on our lives, be it lockdown, facemasks or vaccine passports?

Pretty sure I already know the answer.

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.

2 minutes ago, big p said:

Out of interest how long will you honestly tolerate restrictions?

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.

3 minutes ago, big p said:

If you can't work out what the difference is between "of" and " with", then I definitely won't be wasting my time in explaining myself. Its pretty simple, :laugh:.

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.

1 minute ago, big p said:

 

The line is someone quoting numbers when they have no idea what the true figures are and putting it out as facts to suit their arguments. 

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

1 minute ago, big p said:

Of course it has, twisting the truth doesn't make you correct. 

 

So how many people actually died "of" covid and not "with" then? I would like to see proof not just your slanted opinion..

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?

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tbh but that's a bit of a straw man.

There is as you well know a significant difference and range of views in between wariness or hesitation about a relatively new technology (MRNA) and the microchip brigade.

Although on a side note, do you consider it more or less likely that had Valneva been on offer, there might be less vaccine hesitant?

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

Just now, And Its Smith said:

Vyner the heart of a mouse there 

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

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

1 minute ago, maxjak said:

As everyone is aware.........if they have'  played football, if you take it as read that the ability is there, then 70% of football is confidence?  That should come from  the coaches, manager  and sports psychologist's;  It is apparent that we lack the confidence to try things, as we are afraid of failing?    It is sad to see us go through the motions, but continually come up short.   Pearson and his team have been here since February, but have they instilled that confidence and  organisation and belief in the team?   Have they Pheck?   I am so disappointed in Pearson, and I assure this is not a knee jerk recation.........but i seriously wonder if he is the man to turn us into something resembling a football team.

January window is crunch time, and if he gets it wrong then i sincerely worry about the way forward.

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.

1 minute ago, TomF said:

Yeah not sure what that's about, I don't think we've got a posting restriction on like that.  I best check thou. 

Some eager dev added it as a part of an update, and thought it was so great he better automatically turn it on for everyone no doubt

Just now, TomF said:

Liquid Football

It said my posts were restricted, then posted about 5 times! Haha

City goal (Semenyo): https://streamja.com/oolOL

What up with the post restriction?

Repost

Repost

Repost

City goal (Semenyo): https://streamja.com/oolOL

Hull goal: https://streamja.com/eOl02

1 hour ago, Harry said:

You’ll have to tell me where I’ve strayed into ‘conspiracy’? 
I think I’ve been very levelled in this actually. I’ve not denied the virus exists, I’ve not denied vaccines work, I’ve not said that nobody should get them, so please tell me where the conspiracy appears? 
I’ve praised the nhs workers, I’ve advocated solutions to help the more vulnerable, I’ve shown concern for citizens and their welfare and businesses. You’ll have to tell me what part of all that is conspiracy. 
Thing is, you’ve just read everything as ‘anti-vaxxer’ and not actually looked at the detail I’ve tried to present. 
 

As for the decisions those in power have to make. Well, I don’t seek power, so I’d never find myself in that position. Those who seek power are a certain kind of personality (usually quite psychopath as it happens - true story, ie superficial, unemotional, lack of remorse, poor judgement). To be fair to him, whilst Boris is an utter cretin, I don’t think he’s in the same category of most leaders and power-seekers as having those psychopathic tendencies. 
Were it me - I’d have been honest from the start. Upfront inform people that a lot of people are going to die from this, we must take precautions such as staying at home if you have any hint of illness, encourage those who are at risk (ie the obese) to change their lifestyles to give themselves a better chance of a positive outcome, would’ve committed the billions required to an army of wellbeing support to the millions of vulnerable, would’ve committed the billions required to beef up the health service to increase capacity and better facilities, and would certainly have set up isolated ‘covid only’ hospitals in order to prevent spread inside regular hospitals (where a good percentage of cases arise), I’d have committed the billions required into the development of anti-virals and medicines rather than billions into vaccines for 80% of the population who don’t really need one, I’d have promoted healthy eating, diet, exercise, rather than sit on your backsides at home and get fat, instead of giving out free lateral flow tests with negligible efficacy, I’d have given out free vitamin d supplements, I’d have been honest - sorry folks, this is a virus that is sadly going to take many peoples lives, whatever we do, but we must live with it from day 1 and do everything possible to mitigate the poor outcomes in the most vulnerable and commit to the best possible care that we can. 

 

Again, not sure what I’ve said is conspiracy. Covid exists, but is only deadly for a very small number of people. Vaccines work for the most vulnerable. But they don’t work for everyone and they certainly don’t stop spread. That’s not conspiracy, love. 

The analysis did say a lot of people would die if we did nothing. That's now (look on this very thread) being used as a reason that it was wrong.

Why do you support the government "encouraging" (how???) people to change their unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity, but you don't support the government encouraging people to get jabbed or prove they are? Can you not also see that the former is a long term issue - it wont be solved in weeks, months, or even years.

The same goes for "beefing up" the health services - it's not an issue of money. Our government printed hundreds of billions last year, and can print literally as much money as it wants thanks to the BoE. These things take time and resources, not money.

Covid only hospitals? So my partner when giving birth at short notice last year, where does she go with 2 days notice? She's in the covid one, the non covid one, or a third type? Three hospitals like that everywhere? And in places that don't have two or three hospitals? What about the staff? What about the one hospital in 100 miles with a specialist center people need? What about the children's hospital we have here?

Why would developing anti-virals be better than a vaccine? You talked about your anger of people making money from the jabs and profiting from the pandemic earlier. Are these anti virals developed for free out of thin air? Your better solution is to let more people catch it, and sell drugs to try and solve it?

Part of the issue is that often once people are ill enough to need treatment - your anti virals - they're so ill they need to go to hospital. So your drugs don't help at all there, they're already taking up valuable space. Makes more sense to prevent that surely?

Again - promoted diet, exercise, and so on - government interference is ok there? And the ones who don't do it? That's not authoritarian?

I'd look forward to your avatar of McDonalds burgers in the shape of a swastika in your alternate reality.

Sounds to me like that you want to just remove all the bits that affect you personally (having to be jabbed, show a QR code, wear a mask, whatever) and push that burden onto other people (stay inside if you're ill, change your life if you're fat, just take drugs if you get really sick).

None of it makes any sense.

5 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

I’m double jabbed but according to the NHS i have only ever received 1 vaccine, they havent bothered recording the second despite getting it from UWE once the Ashton Gate service shut down, been trying for 3 months to get this sorted but nobody wants to know, interested to know if anyone else is in the same boat? No idea what i am meant to do come matchday.

You can still get in by registering a negative lateral flow, don't worry. No idea on your other point though, sorry!

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

Delta Omicron. 
Just a coincidence but that’s an anagram of 

Media Control. 
 

Interestingly

Ah yes that's how they name the variants. You've got to be kidding me.

Tell me Harry... is any of the media in the room with you right now? Can you see them?