Bangitintrnet wrote: January 14th, 2022, 10:47 am Science is used to predict the likely outcome in these cases. It's about the impact it has on numbers and the problem that causes for our essential services. We will most likely all get Omicron at some point, we will all die eventually anyway. Dieing unnessarily, not because of your own actions/inactions, but because someone else couldn't care less is the point.

'dying unnecessarily' - Well suppose that could apply to being murdered, killed by a drink driver or an accident at work due to negligence, or a misdiagnosed illness, a DIY accident, or ANY death of someone under 70 etc etc (although in the cycle of life, biology etc is any death 'unnecessary'? - a bit philosophical for a Friday morning perhaps?!)...same as it ever was I guess but the bogeymen of Covid has provided a lighting rod for people's fears and superstitions as well as yes [sadly] being at one point VERY dangerous to small % of us - we now know it is not [largely] dangerous and is among the suite of many things that might/could/will at some point 'kill' us - the most likely cause of death of course being...old age

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:09 am I think County For Life is misunderstanding / mischaracterising the argument. Of course we all want to get back to normal - but COVID and its variants will be with us for some time, so surely a diluted form of football is better than not being allowed to attend at all. If we continue to treat it as a binary (no fans at all vs everyone acting as they did pre-pandemic) then we'll most likely find that a return to a 'fan ban' is deemed necessary. Whereas if we act with a degree of moderation, there's a much better chance that government will be less likely to impose draconian restrictions when the next variant arises.

So if i behave better now and into the future there is less chance we will all get locked down. OK. All opinions mate no matter how much I disagree.

I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Ed you can't speak to some people I've challenged people in supermarkets for not wearing face coverings I've been polite but I'm getting abuse and I think is it worth it they are probably the same people that refuse to get vaccination.

CathedralCounty wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:13 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 14th, 2022, 10:47 am Science is used to predict the likely outcome in these cases. It's about the impact it has on numbers and the problem that causes for our essential services. We will most likely all get Omicron at some point, we will all die eventually anyway. Dieing unnessarily, not because of your own actions/inactions, but because someone else couldn't care less is the point.

'dying unnecessarily' - Well suppose that could apply to being murdered, killed by a drink driver or an accident at work due to negligence, or a misdiagnosed illness, a DIY accident, or ANY death of someone under 70 etc etc (although in the cycle of life, biology etc is any death 'unnecessary'? - a bit philosophical for a Friday morning perhaps?!)...same as it ever was I guess but the bogeymen of Covid has provided a lighting rod for people's fears and superstitions as well as yes [sadly] being at one point VERY dangerous to small % of us - we now know it is not [largely] dangerous and is among the suite of many things that might/could/will at some point 'kill' us - the most likely cause of death of course being...old age

Great post mate, I really enjoy your posts as they not only contain opinion but data on subjects too which I can't be bothered to look for (but glad you do).
Every family been affected by COVID. My wife, mum, 2 kids have had it. It's not nice (all ok thank god). My kids getting a shitty education and not socialising, will be forced to wear masks at school and in all social settings. What is the impact of the mental health on not just them, but society in general due to lockdowns and enforcing social distancing?. Everyone got a big opinion on everything else, but don't like looking back on the harm it's done in other aspects.
Another thing you mention but people won't accept is that the vulnerable should really stay home or make a personal choice. What appetite do they have to risk enjoying life without staying at home. Difficult choices for people in an awful situation and I wish them well. It's a sad situation.

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

I understand you perfectly. You wouldn't be able to see. We will go round and roind in circles as the forum usually does, nobody will budge from entrenched opinions. We are all COVID experts (inc me)

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:34 am

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Ed you can't speak to some people I've challenged people in supermarkets for not wearing face coverings I've been polite but I'm getting abuse and I think is it worth it they are probably the same people that refuse to get vaccination.

Agree on the vaccinations but only to the extent they prevent serious illness (thus preventing an NHS meltdown) but only reduce transmission by a degree but far better to have one than not - but for masks the effects are quite small, negligible even - they are little more than a comfort blanket especially if worn incorrectly or not washed - yes wear one ideally (I do) but not a hill to die on tbh - think people have made far too much of masks to be honest and no real need to wear outdoors (I recall the over excited stewards at a 10% full Wembley last May insisting we all wear mask outside in the stadium bowl on a roasting hot day where vapour dissipated before it had left our mouths! the ref was wearing one - over his eyes)

County4Life wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:41 am

CathedralCounty wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:13 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 14th, 2022, 10:47 am Science is used to predict the likely outcome in these cases. It's about the impact it has on numbers and the problem that causes for our essential services. We will most likely all get Omicron at some point, we will all die eventually anyway. Dieing unnessarily, not because of your own actions/inactions, but because someone else couldn't care less is the point.

'dying unnecessarily' - Well suppose that could apply to being murdered, killed by a drink driver or an accident at work due to negligence, or a misdiagnosed illness, a DIY accident, or ANY death of someone under 70 etc etc (although in the cycle of life, biology etc is any death 'unnecessary'? - a bit philosophical for a Friday morning perhaps?!)...same as it ever was I guess but the bogeymen of Covid has provided a lighting rod for people's fears and superstitions as well as yes [sadly] being at one point VERY dangerous to small % of us - we now know it is not [largely] dangerous and is among the suite of many things that might/could/will at some point 'kill' us - the most likely cause of death of course being...old age

Great post mate, I really enjoy your posts as they not only contain opinion but data on subjects too which I can't be bothered to look for (but glad you do).
Every family been affected by COVID. My wife, mum, 2 kids have had it. It's not nice (all ok thank god). My kids getting a shitty education and not socialising, will be forced to wear masks at school and in all social settings. What is the impact of the mental health on not just them, but society in general due to lockdowns and enforcing social distancing?. Everyone got a big opinion on everything else, but don't like looking back on the harm it's done in other aspects.
Another thing you mention but people won't accept is that the vulnerable should really stay home or make a personal choice. What appetite do they have to risk enjoying life without staying at home. Difficult choices for people in an awful situation and I wish them well. It's a sad situation.

Opinions eh? You made a sarcastic comment on here some time ago about the unvaccinated and what to do with them. Humour I know. Now you say that a personal choice should be made by the vulnerable in whether to stay at home. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Isn't no fans at stadiums still the best option to prevent lockdowns in the future? These are your beliefs. Go 100% with it

So if i heard right 500 can attend outdoor sporting events from tomorrow,

ST holders only then?

County4Life wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:04 pm

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Isn't no fans at stadiums still the best option to prevent lockdowns in the future? These are your beliefs. Go 100% with it

Sorry, but if you're going to just put forward bad-faith strawman arguments then I have no interest in engaging with you. I was - as you well know - putting forward suggestions aimed at avoiding having stadium bans and lockdowns in the future. Your continued mischaracterisation of arguments with which you disagree does you no credit at all.

Lock downs are to limit the spread. Now Omicron has reached its peak and is reducing they can be relaxed. Rejoice.

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:16 pm

County4Life wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:04 pm

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Isn't no fans at stadiums still the best option to prevent lockdowns in the future? These are your beliefs. Go 100% with it

Sorry, but if you're going to just put forward bad-faith strawman arguments then I have no interest in engaging with you. I was - as you well know - putting forward suggestions aimed at avoiding having stadium bans and lockdowns in the future. Your continued mischaracterisation of arguments with which you disagree does you no credit at all.

Sorry mate, didn't mean us to fall out. I listened to your podcast and it's very very good, clearly a talented man who loves the Club

CathedralCounty wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:47 am

UPTHEPORT wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:34 am

Kairdiff Exile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:31 am I don't see what there is to disagree with. Surely it's obvious that restrictions are less likely to be required if people act sensibly of their own volition to prevent the virus from spreading? Case numbers will be lower from reduced infections, so government will be less inclined to step in.

Ed you can't speak to some people I've challenged people in supermarkets for not wearing face coverings I've been polite but I'm getting abuse and I think is it worth it they are probably the same people that refuse to get vaccination.

Agree on the vaccinations but only to the extent they prevent serious illness (thus preventing an NHS meltdown) but only reduce transmission by a degree but far better to have one than not - but for masks the effects are quite small, negligible even - they are little more than a comfort blanket especially if worn incorrectly or not washed - yes wear one ideally (I do) but not a hill to die on tbh - think people have made far too much of masks to be honest and no real need to wear outdoors (I recall the over excited stewards at a 10% full Wembley last May insisting we all wear mask outside in the stadium bowl on a roasting hot day where vapour dissipated before it had left our eemouths! the ref was wearing one - over his eyes)

Agree with you comments about the mask wearing, but would add that there is no downside that I'm aware off to wearing mask in indoor public places so therefore there is no reason not to.
I do take a look on vaccinations from a different angle however,whilst accepting they only have a limited effect on tranmission and prevent serious illness in most cases, the biggest factor presently and in the future is the high number of unvaccinated in hospital and ICUs curbing and compromising the ability of the NHS to deliver treatment and services to the population at large. Thereby they are potentially damaging the health of many, and increasing the risk of restrictions being imposed in the future.
Of course the greater percentage of the population who continue do as they please, the greater the likelihood of further restrictions being re-introduced in the future. Only the extraordinary naive or blinkered can see it differently. The sad paradox as I see it, is those that 'grizzle' the most about the restrictions (FAN BAN exepted) are those who's behaviours increase the likelihood of them happening.

pembsexile wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:03 pm

County4Life wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:41 am

CathedralCounty wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:13 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: January 14th, 2022, 10:47 am Science is used to predict the likely outcome in these cases. It's about the impact it has on numbers and the problem that causes for our essential services. We will most likely all get Omicron at some point, we will all die eventually anyway. Dieing unnessarily, not because of your own actions/inactions, but because someone else couldn't care less is the point.

'dying unnecessarily' - Well suppose that could apply to being murdered, killed by a drink driver or an accident at work due to negligence, or a misdiagnosed illness, a DIY accident, or ANY death of someone under 70 etc etc (although in the cycle of life, biology etc is any death 'unnecessary'? - a bit philosophical for a Friday morning perhaps?!)...same as it ever was I guess but the bogeymen of Covid has provided a lighting rod for people's fears and superstitions as well as yes [sadly] being at one point VERY dangerous to small % of us - we now know it is not [largely] dangerous and is among the suite of many things that might/could/will at some point 'kill' us - the most likely cause of death of course being...old age

Great post mate, I really enjoy your posts as they not only contain opinion but data on subjects too which I can't be bothered to look for (but glad you do).
Every family been affected by COVID. My wife, mum, 2 kids have had it. It's not nice (all ok thank god). My kids getting a shitty education and not socialising, will be forced to wear masks at school and in all social settings. What is the impact of the mental health on not just them, but society in general due to lockdowns and enforcing social distancing?. Everyone got a big opinion on everything else, but don't like looking back on the harm it's done in other aspects.
Another thing you mention but people won't accept is that the vulnerable should really stay home or make a personal choice. What appetite do they have to risk enjoying life without staying at home. Difficult choices for people in an awful situation and I wish them well. It's a sad situation.

Opinions eh? You made a sarcastic comment on here some time ago about the unvaccinated and what to do with them. Humour I know. Now you say that a personal choice should be made by the vulnerable in whether to stay at home. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.

Hello mate, i will do my best to refrain from sarcasm in the future. I'm going to try to not to get involved with this and will try my best to stick to football topics. So you all can have your way with the world as you see it (last sarcastic comment entered)