O/T:- Vaccines: Pro/Anti & Conspiracy Theories [Originally Covid Pass and Meadow Ln.]

[upthemaggies]

Going back to the thread topic, has it been confirmed clearly whether the rule is based on capacity or expected attendance? I've lost track of this I'm afraid.

Wasn't the JS limited due to safety concerns on crushing below the stand with big away followings and this didn't involve shutting off parts of the stand, just having a limit. Can't see any reason why they can't just close the gates when a number has been reached.

[jackal2]

Going back to the thread topic, has it been confirmed clearly whether the rule is based on capacity or expected attendance? I've lost track of this I'm afraid.

The rule states that venues must carry out COVID-19 status checks for events with 10,000 or more attendees, whether indoor or outdoor, such as large sports and music events, and that each venue or event will have a responsible person who must ensure compliance with the obligations. So if Carlisle shut the gates after their 9999th customer enters the ground in line with their declared capacity, they're fine, but if they don't have complete control over that, then they're liable.

Mind you, when have attendance statistics at lower league clubs ever been that reliable? I was convinced during the Pavis days that our attendances were often higher than the official declaration! I know we have automated systems these days which should produce more accurate data, but if there were say, 10,500 in Meadow Lane and someone told me there were 9,900, I wouldn't be able to tell!

Everybody just stand still while we count you!

[i961pie]

The rule states that venues must carry out COVID-19 status checks for events with 10,000 or more attendees, whether indoor or outdoor, such as large sports and music events, and that each venue or event will have a responsible person who must ensure compliance with the obligations. So if Carlisle shut the gates after their 9999th customer enters the ground in line with their declared capacity, they're fine, but if they don't have complete control over that, then they're liable.

Mind you, when have attendance statistics at lower league clubs ever been that reliable? I was convinced during the Pavis days that our attendances were often higher than the official declaration! I know we have automated systems these days which should produce more accurate data, but if there were say, 10,500 in Meadow Lane and someone told me there were 9,900, I wouldn't be able to tell!

Everybody just stand still while we count you!

Aren't season ticket holders included in the crowd total whether they turn up or not?

[cher1]

Aren't season ticket holders included in the crowd total whether they turn up or not?

We were debating this the other day. I can't remember.

There are counters on the turnstiles which update the attendance live on screens within the club. Presumably the stewards have access to this info, and it def used to in the boardroom. Think Ian Burchnall said during a recent interview there's one in his office too. That must impact on any...um... flexibity with figures.

[upthemaggies]

We were debating this the other day. I can't remember.

There are counters on the turnstiles which update the attendance live on screens within the club. Presumably the stewards have access to this info, and it def used to in the boardroom. Think Ian Burchnall said during a recent interview there's one in his office too. That must impact on any...um... flexibity with figures.

Quite a big deal was made of Bradford City and MK Dons(?) doing it. Wouldn't have thought Notts could have switched to that way of calculating gates without somebody mentioning it, unless it's a big secret and if so - why? No reason to inflate our gates when we are extremely well supported at lower levels.

[drillerpie]

I've been really busy over the last few days so haven't been able to get into this conversation, although i have been following it with interest.

It has gone in several directions so I wouldn't know where to start now, but there was one comment I felt needed a reply.

It was mentioned that the institutions shouldn't be believed on the vaccine, as they have a track record of getting things wrong since Covid first hit.

I would just point out that on the anti-institutional side of things, since early 2020 we've heard that:

Covid19 is no worse than flu. This has subsequently been spun to mean that eventually milder strains will dominate and it will become a seasonal illness, which makes sense and is probably (but not definitely) true, but I'm pretty sure the original comparison was meant regarding the seriousness of Covid19 was when it first hit, which has been disproved.

There would be no excess deaths from the first wave. To the best of my knowledge this has been clearly disproved.

You shouldn't wear masks as they fill your lungs with carbon monoxide and don't work anyway. This is the one that I really don't understand - it is quite intuitive to me that if you have some kind of a physical barrier to your droplets spreading, this is a good thing. The research does indeed back this up. People who work in certain jobs wore these things pretty much all day every day even before Covid, and they don't breathe carbon monoxide. Since the first SARS it has been normal in many Asian countries to wear these things in public out of respect for others, especially if you have a cold or flu. This is a low cost and effective way to prevent the spread of germs and I don't see any good reason for demonising them. The only down side i can see is that lots of them don't end up in the bin, but that goes for lots of other things too.

The second wave wouldn't lead to any excess deaths. To the best of my knowledge this has also been disproved.

I know that the sceptics are not one homogenous mass, an not everyone who is wary of Covid vaccines was an anti-mask Covid-sceptic who believedall of this stuff, but there does seem to be a certain amount of correlation there. If the institutions' track record is relevant, all of this may well be relevant too.

For me the most convincing theory to come from outside the mainstream, although it's now becoming a lot more mainstream, is the lab leak hypothesis, which was ridiculed purely because Trump was a proponent, and because the China funded WHO ruled it out almost comically quickly without rigorous investigation. IMO that is a good example of why it's always good to keep at least a partly open mind about things.

Having said that, being open minded is not the same as knee-jerk contrarianism and paranoia, which have been at work in the cases I mentioned above.

[upthemaggies]

I've been really busy over the last few days so haven't been able to get into this conversation, although i have been following it with interest.

It has gone in several directions so I wouldn't know where to start now, but there was one comment I felt needed a reply.

It was mentioned that the institutions shouldn't be believed on the vaccine, as they have a track record of getting things wrong since Covid first hit.

I would just point out that on the anti-institutional side of things, since early 2020 we've heard that:

Covid19 is no worse than flu. This has subsequently been spun to mean that eventually milder strains will dominate and it will become a seasonal illness, which makes sense and is probably (but not definitely) true, but I'm pretty sure the original comparison was meant regarding the seriousness of Covid19 was when it first hit, which has been disproved.

There would be no excess deaths from the first wave. To the best of my knowledge this has been clearly disproved.

You shouldn't wear masks as they fill your lungs with carbon monoxide and don't work anyway. This is the one that I really don't understand - it is quite intuitive to me that if you have some kind of a physical barrier to your droplets spreading, this is a good thing. The research does indeed back this up. People who work in certain jobs wore these things pretty much all day every day even before Covid, and they don't breathe carbon monoxide. Since the first SARS it has been normal in many Asian countries to wear these things in public out of respect for others, especially if you have a cold or flu. This is a low cost and effective way to prevent the spread of germs and I don't see any good reason for demonising them. The only down side i can see is that lots of them don't end up in the bin, but that goes for lots of other things too.

The second wave wouldn't lead to any excess deaths. To the best of my knowledge this has also been disproved.

I know that the sceptics are not one homogenous mass, an not everyone who is wary of Covid vaccines was an anti-mask Covid-sceptic who believedall of this stuff, but there does seem to be a certain amount of correlation there. If the institutions' track record is relevant, all of this may well be relevant too.

For me the most convincing theory to come from outside the mainstream, although it's now becoming a lot more mainstream, is the lab leak hypothesis, which was ridiculed purely because Trump was a proponent, and because the China funded WHO ruled it out almost comically quickly without rigorous investigation. IMO that is a good example of why it's always good to keep at least a partly open mind about things.

Having said that, being open minded is not the same as knee-jerk contrarianism and paranoia, which have been at work in the cases I mentioned above.

"Covid19 is no worse than flu." - For the majority of people (vast majority even) that was true from the start of the pandemic. You can say it's impact on the health service was as bad or close to as bad as the Hong Kong Flu of 1968-70, which I assume is the angle you're coming from. but I would imagine most people make that statement from the point of view of a member of the general public going about their daily business rather than from the point of view of the care sector or officials having to develop a strategy to deal with it.

In my case, I'd say Covid felt like the most unnatural illness I've ever had and I can appreciate how people can die of it. If I'd had it for just a few days with the same level of symptoms at its worst, I'd have shrugged it off as no big deal, but dragging on for three weeks and not knowing when it's going to end is rough going. Given the choice of having flu or Covid again, I'd take my chances with flu.

With that in mind, I'm absolutely all for anything that effectively and safely stops you getting Covid or takes care of the illness after you've caught it, which is why I'd fully support the treatments which are presently being denied to doctors who know those treatments can work. We should be using all of the tools in the box if this is purely about health and saving lives, but if dark forces are deliberately trying to keep this virus going for as long as possible (as a reasonable threat to health) to shoe in some other agenda with plausibility denial, then they are doing a damned good job of it.

[maddogslater]

Have you read this UTMs ? Scary sht.
COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/09824560...10KX5KEPT7S9Q2

[applepie2]

"Covid19 is no worse than flu." - For the majority of people (vast majority even) that was true from the start of the pandemic. You can say it's impact on the health service was as bad or close to as bad as the Hong Kong Flu of 1968-70, which I assume is the angle you're coming from. but I would imagine most people make that statement from the point of view of a member of the general public going about their daily business rather than from the point of view of the care sector or officials having to develop a strategy to deal with it.

In my case, I'd say Covid felt like the most unnatural illness I've ever had and I can appreciate how people can die of it. If I'd had it for just a few days with the same level of symptoms at its worst, I'd have shrugged it off as no big deal, but dragging on for three weeks and not knowing when it's going to end is rough going. Given the choice of having flu or Covid again, I'd take my chances with flu.

With that in mind, I'm absolutely all for anything that effectively and safely stops you getting Covid or takes care of the illness after you've caught it, which is why I'd fully support the treatments which are presently being denied to doctors who know those treatments can work. We should be using all of the tools in the box if this is purely about health and saving lives, but if dark forces are deliberately trying to keep this virus going for as long as possible (as a reasonable threat to health) to shoe in some other agenda with plausibility denial, then they are doing a damned good job of it.

Which treatments are these?

[sidders]

Apparently 31% of EFL players have not yet had their first shot against COVID and a quarter of players have no intention of getting vaccinated. We could have the ridiculous situation of fans having to produce a vaccine passport to watch players who have not been vaccinated.
What's a matter with these pillocks? Are they afraid of having a pinprick? Will it get them laughed out of the dressing room?
Civil liberties are all well and good but this is about protecting your fellow man as well as yourself. Those who reject being vaccinated are behaving like a bunch of right wingers or do they actually believe the Q-anon myth that it's all part of a government plot to control people?
The way things are going football will have ground to a halt before January is halfway through.