Jump to content

Latest Plans on Finishing The Season


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, REDAs_biG_piECE said:

Social distancing is one of the biggest scams pulled on the people ever

 

virus are not living things and cannot be spread by touch or picked up off surfaces

 

its a psyop to control us, make us live in fear and install Orwellian rules and laws around us 

 

start educating yourself 

 

Are you social distancing or ignoring it, therefore putting peoples lifes (including yourself) at risk?

 

And the irony of you talking about people educating themselves is astounding.

Edited by Belfast Owl 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

virus are not living things and cannot be spread by touch or picked up off surfaces

 

They are not living things and that is exactly why the way they spread is by touch or from surfaces or more likely droplets in the air.

 

Educate yourself FFS

 

@Belfast Owl 2 Oops! Sorry, I quoted your quote so it looks like I am responding to you.

 

FAO @REDAs_biG_piECE

Edited by OxonOwl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, prowl said:

How can it enter a cell if it's not active. It would just be there and do nothing. It's a complicated issue and not really worth going into unless this is a science board.

 

The best way of looking at it is that it just is, it doesn't think, it doesn't have a plan but it is very contagious and can kill people.

It is active. It becomes virulent once it enters a cell.

And they are extremely resourceful in the methods they use to disguise there purpose.

 

Hence why they are difficult to identify and control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsheri said:

And they are extremely resourceful in the methods they use to disguise there purpose

Thy aren't resourceful - that implies an active mind which they don't have. Some viruses just evolve in such a way that immune systems don't necessarily recognise them for what they are - especially initially. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rickygoo said:

Thy aren't resourceful - that implies an active mind which they don't have. Some viruses just evolve in such a way that immune systems don't necessarily recognise them for what they are - especially initially. 

Of course they are resourceful. They develop complex mechanisms to trick the cell that they are a welcome visitor..

Then they create carnage. Hence the wolf in sheep clothing..

 

Speak to any scientist about how resourceful a virus can be. Doesn't imply an active mind, that's silly. It's the behavioural mechanism

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rickygoo said:

Matthew Syed’s view - essentially making the point that ultimately we

must live alongside this thing and assess the risks accordingly. 

 

 

F414F0C2-9796-4BDE-BF08-720B756157D5.jpeg

8F4BD5D5-B1F9-4A80-9AF8-DBA67947679C.jpeg

 

Although he makes some logical points, and this is clearly an enormously complex set of issues, he comes across as rather callous overall. The whole thing could have been distilled into "stop whining and get on with it".

 

But again, the emphasis seems to concentrate only on the likelihood of death for healthy young men. There is little consideration for those they come into contact with (directly or indirectly), no reference to the research indicating that intense physical exertion makes the effects of the virus worse, not a mention for the studies about long-term organ damage for those who recover, an apparent disregard for underlying conditions that some of the players might have, no taking into account the questionable reliability of testing, no musing of what happens if (or more likely, when) people test positive...

 

I'm struggling to see how we can square the circle, not just in football, but life generally. Despite lockdown we have seen 32,000 coronavirus deaths in just a few weeks. Relaxation of the current measures will inevitably see this rate, and with it the pressure on the health service, surge sharply. In the long term it seems we will either have to accept a considerable change in how we interact or come to terms with a severe change in risk and mortality rates that is currently impossible to deal with effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say he's callous but that's a subjective view on his tone. I suppose the people coming into contact thing is covered partly by testing regularly and partly by social distancing in other areas of their life.

 

We could wait until we know everything about the virus and we have a vaccine/effective treatment but what damage will that do? I think his over arching point is right - and it was the heart of The Athletic piece on The Bundesliga - we have to work out a way to get going again before too much damage is done to wider society and especially wider health issues in every sphere. Even trivial matters that are blowing up are a right pain. I've been getting horrendous toothache on and off over the last couple of weeks - not life threatening but potentially teeth threatening! But cancer treatments are on hold, people are reluctant to go into hospital for all sorts of conditions that could become fatal. Ultimately we'll all have to make our own risk assessments and balance that with how we choose to or have to make our living. If it's deemed "safe" to go out and about in my line of work it's up to me to decide whether I accept that or find something else to do. It may be ultimately I have no choice and money dictates I have to go back. 

 

That doesn't mean I agree that now is the time. I have no idea to be honest, although talk of disinfecting pitches make me a bit dubious. It's all down to far better scientific minds than I, and possibly you because I don't know what your background is, possess. If the medical experts say play because they genuinely feel the risks are at an "acceptable" level and they outline those risks then it's down to the individuals concerned as to what to do. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsheri said:

Of course they are resourceful. They develop complex mechanisms to trick the cell that they are a welcome visitor..

Then they create carnage. Hence the wolf in sheep clothing..

 

Speak to any scientist about how resourceful a virus can be. Doesn't imply an active mind, that's silly. It's the behavioural mechanism

 

I was arguing on a narrow semantic view of what the word suggests to me rather than its actual meaning. I submit and beg your forgiveness and understanding!

lol

 

 

Edited by rickygoo
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

It's all down to far better scientific minds than I, and possibly you because I don't know what your background is, possess. If the medical experts say play because they genuinely feel the risks are at an "acceptable" level and they outline those risks then it's down to the individuals concerned as to what to do. 

 

I'm not sure anyone is qualified to deal with this effectively. There will be huge long-term implications, no matter what the authorities choose to do. The other day at the Government briefing it was notable that the two advisors avoided directly answering the question about whether they were in full support of the latest measures, so we can assume there is dissent even at the highest levels.

 

Commerce, human psychology, the economy, social interaction, public health and so many other things are in all in conflict with one another in ways that modern society has not seen for generations at least. Without undoing the fabric of the world, a lot of major challenges lie ahead. I don't envy those in charge of having to navigate this at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nero said:

As someone who isnt a corrupt press or leader and who caught the virus with another 20 people at a  small gig in March, one of whom died and one who is still on a ventilator: I can tell you that it's good to have an open mind but it's also worth having a filter on it so you avoid being an idiot with an open mind.

Add an er to the end of your name.

There’s really no need to be so rude. I am sorry for what happened to you. Genuinely. I didn’t realise keeping an open mind only applied if I agree with you though. And that not agreeing with you makes me an idiot. Fair enough. Personally I prefer reasoned debate to name calling. I’m obviously in the wrong place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd rather all was voided and started again in September I can see why the EFL and EPL want to get things going again on the money front as most businesses are saying the same.

 

The lockdown did it's job to give the NHS capacity but will end up taking more lives over a few years than the virus ever did if it continues much longer.

Having half the nation on social welfare isn't viable, probably ended all universal basic income talk too.

 

The more I think about seeing Tom 'Panic' Lees and Cameron 'Bar of Carbolic' Dawson play again so soon though the more I think nah cancel it all still.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoping to kick off 13th June.  I don't see that it can happen. On 30th June a lot of players contracts expire and the whole structure of a lot of playing squads will dramatically change.

 

The run in will be a nightmare with a number of teams losing games they would normally expect to win or draw. They might as well draw lots for who goes up and who goes down. It really is going to be a shambles.

 

There will be clubs wanting to move players on at the end of their contracts who they will have to resign. Players who know they aren't going to be wanted long term won't want short term contracts with the risk of injury.

 

They said before that sometime around now was the last possible date to start training. They will miss that by a couple of weeks. It's a none starter but they just won't accept reality.

 

Money first as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

Imagine if they drew lots who's going up and it ended up Wednesday barnsley and huddersfield. 

 

They'd be a mushroom cloud over leeds the size of Nebraska 

That would make my day. Anything to P Leeds off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rickygoo said:

Matthew Syed’s view - essentially making the point that ultimately we

must live alongside this thing and assess the risks accordingly. 

 

 

F414F0C2-9796-4BDE-BF08-720B756157D5.jpeg

8F4BD5D5-B1F9-4A80-9AF8-DBA67947679C.jpeg


Under the safety laws, employers do have an obligation to eliminate risk if reasonable practicable to do so. 
 

These people also never mention community spread of the virus, it’s all about the footballer on a very personal level; he is young, he is fit; good for him. How about his child that then contracts the virus or Kawasaki syndrome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rogers said:


Under the safety laws, employers do have an obligation to eliminate risk if reasonable practicable to do so. 
 

These people also never mention community spread of the virus, it’s all about the footballer on a very personal level; he is young, he is fit; good for him. How about his child that then contracts the virus or Kawasaki syndrome. 

They do and with all the testing etc the PL will argue they are doing that.

 

Children seem to be less affected than the rest of us overall - and I know low risk doesn't mean no risk, my teenage daughter got a very low grade cancer that should only affect men over the age of 60 who drink and smoke. It may have been environmental but it was also extremely unlikely. It's a question of assessing that risk and she was just extremely unlucky. 

 

And I stress, I'm not saying they should play. It's the same with every industry - ultimately there will come a point when they have to start up again or pack in altogether. It's above my pay grade to say where that point is for sport and how many clubs we'll lose before it's reached. 

Edited by rickygoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TINKERBELL said:

Brilliant news. 

She was given the all clear a year or so ago. To be honest the treatment was worse than the affliction as they had to keep monitoring it even though it was low grade and risk. But all good now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...