whoareya wrote: December 21st, 2021, 8:49 am

County ranger wrote: December 21st, 2021, 7:26 am

lowandhard wrote: December 19th, 2021, 9:21 pm

County ranger wrote: December 19th, 2021, 5:31 pm

UPTHEPORT wrote: December 19th, 2021, 4:54 pm

Fu Ming wrote: December 19th, 2021, 4:00 pm What % of County players and staff have had jabs?
I know a lot are young and wouldn't of had the 2nd or 3rd jab yet.
It would great to know that our club and players are taking this matter seriously, and effectively insisting that all playing and non playing staff to do with the club get jabbed.

That's getting into patient confidential in my view

I think both Liverpool and Wolves have come out and said all players are vaccinated two points doing all they can to avoid postponing matches and wasting fans money and also sending a good lifestyle choice message to both local community and fans.
It would be great if County and other EFL teams could follow the lead.

Agreed. Isn’t it odd that being immunised against polio, tetanus, smallpox etc is uncontroversial and when going to other parts of the world, Typhoid, Hep B etc etc but a jab against a proven killer like Covid is a cause of enormous argument?
I, like many, couldn’t wait to get my booster and will look forward to my omicron jab next year. Perhaps my generation that had parents and relatives who had suffered with tuberculosis and who had classmates irredeemably damaged by polio are more immediately educated in the benefits of vaccination and remember once upon a time penicillin was a new, experimental drug but it saved the life of millions as will this vaccination program.

Excellent points and depressingly your generation of which I am one still have the culture of doing the right thing as opposed to the entitled younger generation where far too many just wish to do the opposite to what they are asked - a continued breakdown in moral discipline.

A breakdown of moral discipline?

You were born in the wrong century......

A generation desperate to live their lives and determined not to be dictated to by the kneejerking Welsh
Government.

You look on other threads and you see people moaning about the disparity of approaches to football but then expect the younger generation to tow the line anyway?

Thankfully it's this generation that will question everything and there'll never be another world conflict where young men go blindly to their deaths as cannon fodder.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:07 am


Think you totally missed the point. It's not about 'towing the line' or not questioning everything or 'blindly going to their deaths' .It's about not being selfish and ignorant about the negative effect your behaviours have on the health of your own communities. I see no problem with that being described as a lack of moral discipline. Believe it to be relevant irrespective of what century you were born. Or are you suggesting it should play no part today?

pembsexile wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:00 am The way this virus is mutating is frightening, really frightening. It is also fascinating in a macabre sort of way. We now see that the transmission rate of the virus is developing in a way not seen before. It is very quick to get a hold. However, the severity of the virus is not as bad as the other variants. I wonder if the two are interlinked? The bloody virus seems to have a strategy and a mind of its own. If it carries on, we will see hospitals overwhelmed because of the sheer numbers of cases even if the severity of the illness for some is not the same as previously seen.

Any experts in Virology out there who can answer this one? Does the virus react to the vaccine fight against it or is it just a chance mutation?

Anyway, if what we see with this virus now does not convince those who can to get vaccinated, then there really is a case for mandatory vaccines. My prediction is that sometime in February (if it’s not too late) the case for mandatory vaccines will be overwhelming. If not, prohibitive selection against those who choose not to get vaccinated will probably happen. It’s not the British way but because of the few, we may be forced to take this action.

I just wish players would set an example.

whoareya wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:30 am

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:07 am


Think you totally missed the point. It's not about 'towing the line' or not questioning everything or 'blindly going to their deaths' .It's about not being selfish and ignorant about the negative effect your behaviours have on the health of your own communities. I see no problem with that being described as a lack of moral discipline. Believe it to be relevant irrespective of what century you were born. Or are you suggesting it should play no part today?

Its not a binary situation of either towing the line or having no moral discipline - the majority of the population, young and old, have done what has been asked (dictated) to them. In fact they've done it several times over the last two years.

We are now at a point where a new strain - with still no factual evidence of its mortality threat to the vast majority of the population - is resulting in another lock down of social interaction.

I find it ironic that the 'morally disciplined' element of society are now demanding the majority of the population restrict their lives again.

The message for this and all other other similar strains is simple - if you are still scared or think you are at risk, then don't go to mass gatherings, don't go to Tesco at midday on a Saturday, don't have non-vaccinated people in your house at Christmas and don't go to football matches where thousands of other people are congregating.

The 'dont' list is endless, but the message is the same.

Bangitintrnet wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:19 am Was listening to a virologist the other day that was saying that this virus will bring about herd immunity, but that it can't be slowed as others have, and thus it will cause huge problems for the NHS. Don't do anything that might mean you requiring the NHS anytime soon was the message .

County4Life wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:02 am

whoareya wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:30 am

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 10:07 am


Think you totally missed the point. It's not about 'towing the line' or not questioning everything or 'blindly going to their deaths' .It's about not being selfish and ignorant about the negative effect your behaviours have on the health of your own communities. I see no problem with that being described as a lack of moral discipline. Believe it to be relevant irrespective of what century you were born. Or are you suggesting it should play no part today?

Its not a binary situation of either towing the line or having no moral discipline - the majority of the population, young and old, have done what has been asked (dictated) to them. In fact they've done it several times over the last two years.

We are now at a point where a new strain - with still no factual evidence of its mortality threat to the vast majority of the population - is resulting in another lock down of social interaction.

I find it ironic that the 'morally disciplined' element of society are now demanding the majority of the population restrict their lives again.

The message for this and all other other similar strains is simple - if you are still scared or think you are at risk, then don't go to mass gatherings, don't go to Tesco at midday on a Saturday, don't have non-vaccinated people in your house at Christmas and don't go to football matches where thousands of other people are congregating.

The 'dont' list is endless, but the message is the same.

There's a lot of 'responsible' citizens who refuse to accept their responsibity to look after themselves. e.g personal health

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 12:11 pm

Absolutely agree that a lot of 'responsible' citizens refuse to accept responsibility to look after themselves with regard personal health, myself included as a smoker, yet do my utmost not to be selfish and only do so at a distance from others.
However believe that 'responsible' citizens should also accept responsibility to do their utmost not to spread infectious and potentially fatal viruses to others. Especially poignant in relation to covid as so much of it is transmitted asymptomatically.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

County4Life wrote: December 21st, 2021, 12:27 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

Brighter minds than mine best suited to answer poigniant questions such as this. All I know from browsing a football forum is that the fans who support the players have showed zero to limited concern for a player's welfare upon contraction

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

UPTHEPORT wrote: December 21st, 2021, 1:03 pm What I have noticed of late in work is D&V is back during the first and second wave it disappeared all together

Because people where washing hands