COVID and Football (Merged)

[JRM]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. He swerves any question that highlights the stupidity of his stance, then babbles on about North Korea and Nazi's. Pitiful. 

My stance is really really straightforward. 

I am NOT against vaccines. 

I am against restricting peoples freedoms and transformation of society based on a virus that is not a threat to many people and the enforcement of have it or we'll take away your rights. 

If you are so afraid with your three jabs and a mask on that you are prepared to threaten people then what does that say about your trust in the vaccine. 

Just leave people alone

 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, JRM said:

My stance is really really straightforward. 

I am NOT against vaccines. 

I am against restricting peoples freedoms and transformation of society based on a virus that is not a threat to many people and the enforcement of have it or we'll take away your rights. 

If you are so afraid with your three jabs and a mask on that you are prepared to threaten people then what does that say about your trust in the vaccine. 

Just leave people alone

 

Well said I really wish you would. You have made your decision others have made theirs - let’s leave it there eh?

[JRM]

5 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Well said I really wish you would. You have made your decision others have made theirs - let’s leave it there eh?

But that's my point  there is no  real choice if you threaten people with their freedoms. 

Edited 6 January, 2022 by JRM

[Toadhall Saint]

6 minutes ago, JRM said:

But that's my point  there is no  real choice if you threaten people with their freedoms. 

What is your definition of freedom?  No law? No rules? No government? What exactly do you mean by freedom? Is it a state of mind that an individual feels when all is right in the world for them?

Edited 6 January, 2022 by Toadhall Saint

[whelk]

I’m intrigued by all these freedom loving vaccine haters that they must surely have other stuff they fear comes from sinister motives? I mean they cannot have lived so long and this is the first mad thoughts they have started to believe? 

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

What is your definition of freedom?  No law? No rules? No government? What exactly do you mean by freedom? Is it a state of mind that an individual feels when all is right in the world for them?

Must have never flown. Imagine not being free to wear your belt when someone tells you to take it off? 

[RedArmy]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s the unvaccinated that are spreading the virus despite what you read.

You don’t honestly believe that do you? 

[whelk]

Armando Iannucci sums up the idiots nicely in Avenue 5. “It’s all special effects”. 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

27 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

You don’t honestly believe that do you? 

Have a look at the figures for London.

[Dark Munster]

1 hour ago, JRM said:

My stance is really really straightforward. 

I am NOT against vaccines. 

I am against restricting peoples freedoms and transformation of society based on a virus that is not a threat to many people and the enforcement of have it or we'll take away your rights. 

If you are so afraid with your three jabs and a mask on that you are prepared to threaten people then what does that say about your trust in the vaccine. 

Just leave people alone

 

Sigh. This was the attitude of most smokers a few decades ago, smoke wherever we want, it's our freedom dammit. For the umpteenth time, anti-vaxxers affect everyone: they are prolonging the pandemic, increasing the spread to others, are petri dishes for mutations, and are responsible for overflowing hospitals (affecting not only burnt-out doctors and nurses, but also hogging beds that then become unavailable for those non-Covid patients in desperate need).

And for the umpteenth time, Covid is not a minor threat. Not just the millions who have died, but just as worse are the hundreds of millions suffering from long covid and God know's what long term organ/brain damage. Omicron may not be as bad as delta, but an upcoming epsi-fucking-lon may well be worse.

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, egg said:

Amen. Not complicated.

His willingness to follow the rules of his chosen profession, but not the rules of a country where he wants to go and do his job, is a tad odd imo. 

But he did follow the rules of the country.  The rules stated he needed to have a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the tournament.  He applied for one amd was granted one (ratified by Victoria state).

The debate now is whether he filled the forms in correctly (I doubt for one minute he even did that himself!) which apparently means they are looking at all the other tennis players they've already let in to the country who have been granted a very similar medical exemption.

It's not about rich people being given seperate rules to follow, it's got more to do with the federal Gov't unhappy with how the local state Gov't handled the situation - which is a political argument!

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

Sigh. This was the attitude of most smokers a few decades ago, smoke wherever we want, it's our freedom dammit. For the umpteenth time, anti-vaxxers affect everyone: they are prolonging the pandemic, increasing the spread to others, are petri dishes for mutations, and are responsible for overflowing hospitals (affecting not only burnt-out doctors and nurses, but also hogging beds that then become unavailable for those non-Covid patients in desperate need).

And for the umpteenth time, Covid is not a minor threat. Not just the millions who have died, but just as worse are the hundreds of millions suffering from long covid and God know's what long term organ/brain damage. Omicron may not be as bad as delta, but an upcoming epsi-fucking-lon may well be worse.

Sigh.

Hasn't Sir Keir Starmer just tested positive for the second time, despite having all his vaccinations?  Must blow your mind to know that a fully vaccinated person can catch and potentially spread the virus whilst also acting as a petri dish for mutations and prolinging the pandemic.

Ironically, if Sir Keir was a tennis player and not a politician, he would have been allowed into Australia at the beginning of the week before testing positive due to his vaccine status....

Edited 7 January, 2022 by Weston Super Saint

[egg]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

But he did follow the rules of the country.  The rules stated he needed to have a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the tournament.  He applied for one amd was granted one (ratified by Victoria state).

The debate now is whether he filled the forms in correctly (I doubt for one minute he even did that himself!) which apparently means they are looking at all the other tennis players they've already let in to the country who have been granted a very similar medical exemption.

It's not about rich people being given seperate rules to follow, it's got more to do with the federal Gov't unhappy with how the local state Gov't handled the situation - which is a political argument!

I thought he was asked to confirm the veracity of his medical exemption. There's nothing wrong with that imo as it's reasonable to have doubt that an elite sportsman has a medical issue so serious as to prevent him from having a vaccination. I think it's obvious to anyone that Novak is hiding behind some bullshit to justify his principled stance and if the authorities have smelt that bs and investigated good on them. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sigh.

Hasn't Sir Keir Starmer just tested positive for the second time, despite having all his vaccinations?  Must blow your mind to know that a fully vaccinated person can catch and potentially spread the virus whilst also acting as a petri dish for mutations and prolinging the pandemic.

Where are you on vaccines and restrictions for the unvaccinated Weston? 

My kids don't want the booster and I'm cool with that. They're of the view that omicron will likely cause them no issue so don't feel the need for another jab. They also take the view that they're as likely to pass it on whether vaxed or otherwise so the booster would be for their benefit only, and I don't disagree with that.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I thought he was asked to confirm the veracity of his medical exemption. There's nothing wrong with that imo as it's reasonable to have doubt that an elite sportsman has a medical issue so serious as to prevent him from having a vaccination. I think it's obvious to anyone that Novak is hiding behind some bullshit to justify his principled stance and if the authorities have smelt that bs and investigated good on them. 

He could quite easily claim that as part of his profession and being that he is so closely monitored by WADA, that a vaccine that hasn't been rigorously tested should not be taken by professional sportspeople as they don't know what effects it may have and therefore should be avoided in order to maintain the integrity of the sport.

I believe the questions regarding the veracity of his medical exemption have come from the federal Gov't, AFTER the state Gov't ratified it - hence my point about this being an internal political wrangle.  Novax followed the rules that he was presented with, he hasn't tried to circumvent them.  The fact that what he was told is now trying to be changed can't be blamed on him, no matter what his opinions about vaccines are.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

He could quite easily claim that as part of his profession and being that he is so closely monitored by WADA, that a vaccine that hasn't been rigorously tested should not be taken by professional sportspeople as they don't know what effects it may have and therefore should be avoided in order to maintain the integrity of the sport.

I believe the questions regarding the veracity of his medical exemption have come from the federal Gov't, AFTER the state Gov't ratified it - hence my point about this being an internal political wrangle.  Novax followed the rules that he was presented with, he hasn't tried to circumvent them.  The fact that what he was told is now trying to be changed can't be blamed on him, no matter what his opinions about vaccines are.

On the first paragraph, I'm not sure that a principled concern equates to a medical reason to justify no vaccine. I get the point completely, but a concern and evidence of a negative impact on one's health are a world apart. 

On the second point, getting an exemption is one thing, but it's veracity must be capable of clarification. If the exemption is based on principled rather than actual health grounds, then he absolutely has circumvented the rules. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Where are you on vaccines and restrictions for the unvaccinated Weston? 

My kids don't want the booster and I'm cool with that. They're of the view that omicron will likely cause them no issue so don't feel the need for another jab. They also take the view that they're as likely to pass it on whether vaxed or otherwise so the booster would be for their benefit only, and I don't disagree with that.

I've had 2 jabs a booster and a flu jab this year - that was my choice.

My wife has had 2 jabs and a booster (which she only had this week as she couldn't afford to risk any side effects before Xmas and miss any time away from work).

My daughter (17) initially said she didn't want the jab as she felt even if she caught the virus, statistically she was unlikely to suffer more than a heavy cold. She then changed her mind (her choice) in October and tried to book a jab but there wasn't any availability.  She didn't want to have it during term time and risk missing any school - she missed the best part of a year during her GCSEs and didn't want to risk her A levels.  She had her first jab last week.

My view is that it is everyone's choice whether they have the vaccine or not and they should assess that based on not only their age group or medical conditions risk, but also against their own perceived risk.

I don't agree with restrictions being forced on anyone as there really are no activities where an individual cannot protect themselves if they wish to do so.  No one is forced to go to a busy shopping centre (there are plenty of times when it won't be busy if you need to go at all) and even if / when you do have to go somewhere there are plenty of ways to protect yourself against infection.  The onus of protection should be on the individual, not on the masses to protect the stupid.

It still astonishes me the amount of people who use the gym who dilligently wipe down the seats of the equipment with a clearly watered down general purpose cleaner (that still gets in your through and makes you cough), yet don't wear any sort of face covering!  They are seemingly happy to accept the risk of using the gym with no protection against what is an 'airborne' virus, but somehow think they'll be safe by wiping down a vinyl seat - where let's be honest, the chances of catching the virus from that are negligible unless you crawl around the floor licking the seats as soon as someone else stands up!

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

On the first paragraph, I'm not sure that a principled concern equates to a medical reason to justify no vaccine. I get the point completely, but a concern and evidence of a negative impact on one's health are a world apart. 

On the second point, getting an exemption is one thing, but it's veracity must be capable of clarification. If the exemption is based on principled rather than actual health grounds, then he absolutely has circumvented the rules. 

On the first point, it's more to do with anti doping.  There has been no rigorous testing of the vaccine and what effects it could have on a sportsman, it could increase red blood cell count and therefore be classed as an advantage.  In a world where an athlete can eat a steak that has been treated with steriods and receive a ban, elite sportspeople cannot be too careful - after all, WADA is very clear that each athlete is responsible for what goes into their body.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

On the first point, it's more to do with anti doping.  There has been no rigorous testing of the vaccine and what effects it could have on a sportsman, it could increase red blood cell count and therefore be classed as an advantage.  In a world where an athlete can eat a steak that has been treated with steriods and receive a ban, elite sportspeople cannot be too careful - after all, WADA is very clear that each athlete is responsible for what goes into their body.

Interesting, but what's the source of that thinking? I've not seen that idea anywhere. If the vaccine was a potential performance enhancer, surely it'd be on the banned list but with an exemption from sanction if a sportsman has it. 

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I've had 2 jabs a booster and a flu jab this year - that was my choice.

My wife has had 2 jabs and a booster (which she only had this week as she couldn't afford to risk any side effects before Xmas and miss any time away from work).

My daughter (17) initially said she didn't want the jab as she felt even if she caught the virus, statistically she was unlikely to suffer more than a heavy cold. She then changed her mind (her choice) in October and tried to book a jab but there wasn't any availability.  She didn't want to have it during term time and risk missing any school - she missed the best part of a year during her GCSEs and didn't want to risk her A levels.  She had her first jab last week.

My view is that it is everyone's choice whether they have the vaccine or not and they should assess that based on not only their age group or medical conditions risk, but also against their own perceived risk.

I don't agree with restrictions being forced on anyone as there really are no activities where an individual cannot protect themselves if they wish to do so.  No one is forced to go to a busy shopping centre (there are plenty of times when it won't be busy if you need to go at all) and even if / when you do have to go somewhere there are plenty of ways to protect yourself against infection.  The onus of protection should be on the individual, not on the masses to protect the stupid.

It still astonishes me the amount of people who use the gym who dilligently wipe down the seats of the equipment with a clearly watered down general purpose cleaner (that still gets in your through and makes you cough), yet don't wear any sort of face covering!  They are seemingly happy to accept the risk of using the gym with no protection against what is an 'airborne' virus, but somehow think they'll be safe by wiping down a vinyl seat - where let's be honest, the chances of catching the virus from that are negligible unless you crawl around the floor licking the seats as soon as someone else stands up!

Cheers, my thoughts are similar. This obligation to vax by stealth doesn't sit comfortably with me, and personally I have no issue being around unvaccinated people who I don't see as a risk to me. 

The gym thing doesn't surprise me. At my gym I see people in the sauna, unmasked of course, then pop a mask on to walk along a corridor. 

To be fair to Boris, his reaction to Omicron has been sensible. Although the booster has been pushed, he's avoided sanctions for people who don't want it. 

Anyways, I'm off to the gym for a sauna. 

[badgerx16]

13 hours ago, JRM said:

For the purposes of entry into Australia is your definition of healthy someone who has had a covid jab? Why is a negative test not enough? 

If you want to enter Australia from a country with endemic Yellow Fever you need to show a valid vaccination certificate for that. Is that another sign of an oppressive regime ?

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Interesting, but what's the source of that thinking? I've not seen that idea anywhere. If the vaccine was a potential performance enhancer, surely it'd be on the banned list but with an exemption from sanction if a sportsman has it. 

It wouldn't be on the banned list as it hasn't been rigorously tested, that's the point.

It stems back to Lighthouse's critical thinking around what 'could' happen.  In the same way that a Gov't can justify lockdowns based on what 'could' happen, sportspeople 'could' cite potential side effects as a legitimate medical / anti doping concern when completing a medical exemption form (after all, we don't actually know what was cited on Novax's exemtion form).

All we know is that Australia Border Patrol have stated that he has failed to 'provide appropriate evidence', but they haven't said what for....

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If you want to enter Australia from a country with endemic Yellow Fever you need to show a valid vaccination certificate for that. Is that another sign of an oppressive regime ?

Does endemic Yellow Fever cause more illness than Omicron?

Are there people who are exempt from having Yellow Fever vaccines on medical grounds and therefore would not have to show a valid certificate?

Edited 7 January, 2022 by Weston Super Saint

[badgerx16]

56 minutes ago, egg said:

I thought he was asked to confirm the veracity of his medical exemption. There's nothing wrong with that imo as it's reasonable to have doubt that an elite sportsman has a medical issue so serious as to prevent him from having a vaccination. I think it's obvious to anyone that Novak is hiding behind some bullshit to justify his principled stance and if the authorities have smelt that bs and investigated good on them. 

Several NFL players have tried to get around the sport's covid protocols with faked vaccination certificates, perhaps the Australians think Djokovic is doing the same.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Does endemic Yellow Fever cause more illness than Omicron?

I have no idea, but JRM's point seems to be primarily about being denied entry if not vaccinated. I don't see protests from people over Yelow Fever.

[badgerx16]

"Australia has cancelled the visa of Czech tennis player Renata Voracova, who had entered the country to play in the Australian Open. "

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59910838

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"Australia has cancelled the visa of Czech tennis player Renata Voracova, who had entered the country to play in the Australian Open. "

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59910838

Interestingly, that article also states :

Quote

More than 90% of Australia's adult population has had at least two doses of the coronavirus vaccine, but many still face restrictions as Covid case numbers rise.

Presumably, they don't believe that the vaccine will work if that have that kind of jab rate and STILL have restrictions.  Seems pointless jabbing the population if you're going to keep the restrictions in place!

[East Kent Saint]

12 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Interestingly, that article also states :

Presumably, they don't believe that the vaccine will work if that have that kind of jab rate and STILL have restrictions.  Seems pointless jabbing the population if you're going to keep the restrictions in place!

Like NZ they went with the isolation model , even Aussies couldn’t return to Oz . It didn’t work because they didn’t start vaccines until they found isolation wasn't going  work if they wanted to start getting back to normality . 

Edited 8 January, 2022 by East Kent Saint

[Turkish]

Any games called off tomorrow yet?

[Alain Perrin]

On 07/01/2022 at 09:19, Weston Super Saint said:

My view is that it is everyone's choice whether they have the vaccine or not and they should assess that based on not only their age group or medical conditions risk, but also against their own perceived risk.

..... Snip .....

The onus of protection should be on the individual, not on the masses to protect the stupid

I think this is the fundamental difference.

For me the vaccine is partly about me (reducing my chances of being very sick) but mainly about others (reducing my chances of being sick, reduces my chances of giving it to someone else who might be more affected).

So whilst I get for a 18year old compared to a 48 year old the equation is tipped more to others than personal risk, the vaccine still has value.

The whole point of vaccination is that the masses protect the individual. It's how they work.

Is it 100% effective, no.  Does it completely halt transmission, no.  Is there some (albeit tiny) personal risk of complications, yes. 

But it does reduce the impacts of these things so has benefit there and the hospital numbers are starkly in favour of the vaccinated.  The personal risk is tiny in comparison with the societal benefits.

If I am honest I have a slight reservation for kids as it's not their decision / they look to others for guidance. 

Other than that I think it's a selfish choice not to take the vaccine (same as attitudes to wearing a mask) and there should be costs / consequences for that.  

Edited 9 January, 2022 by Alain Perrin

[JRM]

On 07/01/2022 at 18:26, Turkish said:

Any games called off tomorrow yet?

Funny enough every game played but already Everton v Leicester called off this week. This headline sums up the farcical situation 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59931656

[AlexLaw76]

On 05/01/2022 at 23:07, whelk said:

Yeah and they rightfully told him to fuck off.

 

On 06/01/2022 at 00:05, The Kraken said:

How did that work out for him? 👍

 

On 06/01/2022 at 19:07, whelk said:

He has a choice and no one has forced him to be vaccinated. Having consequences of his choice. Nothing wrong with that

 

On 06/01/2022 at 19:15, aintforever said:

Pro choice, as in Australia can let in whoever they choose?

 

On 06/01/2022 at 19:32, aintforever said:

Maybe, but it’s right the rules apply to everyone regardless of how important they think they are.

 

On 06/01/2022 at 20:38, Whitey Grandad said:

How do you know he’s healthy? 
 

Besides, there’s a matter here of the greater good for all Australians and if it sends out a message then they may think it’s worthwhile. Their choice. It’s only a tennis player. There are plenty of others to take his place.

Seems things are changing re Djokovic.  Be interesting to see why (and to what extent)?

"Alexa, what is the definition of humiliation?"

 

Edited 10 January, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, JRM said:

Funny enough every game played but already Everton v Leicester called off this week. This headline sums up the farcical situation 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59931656

What a joke,  this wont be the only game called off this week. Funny how these teams without the players to put out a team week after suddenly all have them available now, and then they start getting covid again.

[Turkish]

If this doesn’t prove clubs have been taking the piss nothing will

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

If this doesn’t prove clubs have been taking the piss nothing will

Yep, it's got ridiculous. Leeds have shown the way, pack the bench with whatever you've got and crack on. Glad they won last night just for doing the right thing. And cos I hate West Ham. 

[S-Clarke]

Well, that didn't work.

Next game off - Burnley v Watford, officially off.

Arsenal also pushing for their Semi Final to be postponed.

What happens in a week or so? Oh yeah, the 'two week' break. Then in Feb when they come back, they'll have their AFCON players back and their transfer business done. Stinks so bad. Corrupt load of utter bollocks.

Edited 17 January, 2022 by S-Clarke

[AlexLaw76]

Long been a farce.

Still no indication when newcastle 

 come to town?

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Long been a farce.

Still no indication when newcastle 

 come to town?

It'll be in Feb sometime, once all their new signings have bedded in and they're on a good run of form.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

It'll be in Feb sometime, once all their new signings have bedded in and they're on a good run of form.

It’s getting ridiculous now. If they can put off games for a month they might as well wait until the end of the season and then play all the games at once. 

[HarvSFC]

One of the stipulations was that postponed fixtures would be played at the next available date, which was cited as one of the few positives we had for Newcastle postponing our fixture. (We could get them on a quick turnaround) Yet, here we are, a midweek where neither Southampton, nor Newcastle are playing, while three other postponed Premier League fixtures are being played and still no announcement on when the fixture will actually be played. 🤷‍♂️

Edited 18 January, 2022 by HarvSFC

[East Kent Saint]

On 10/01/2022 at 06:33, AlexLaw76 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Seems things are changing re Djokovic.  Be interesting to see why (and to what extent)?

"Alexa, what is the definition of humiliation?"

 

Other countries following Oz lead , even Wimbledon giving no guarantees .

[jawillwill]

How are Burnley ever going to fulfil their fixtures? They already have 5 games in hand on some teams...

[JRM]

7 hours ago, HarvSFC said:

One of the stipulations was that postponed fixtures would be played at the next available date, which was cited as one of the few positives we had for Newcastle postponing our fixture. (We could get them on a quick turnaround) Yet, here we are, a midweek where neither Southampton, nor Newcastle are playing, while three other postponed Premier League fixtures are being played and still no announcement on when the fixture will actually be played. 🤷‍♂️

Premier league have opened the door and it seems too late to stop it, Arsenal game Sunday was hilarious, their u23s played and they actually loaned out Maitland-Niles and Balogun on the days building up to the game , very fishy. 

Burnley crack me up, probably hoping to have a good run later in the season and pick up points then, if they win the games in hand they'll only be a point behind us. Being out of the FA Cup should free up some dates for them to play. 

[whelk]

Seriously from everyone spoke to only LD thinks it is above board.  PL such a faceless organisation since Scudamore gone. Ignoring any response to the clear annoyance of all fans just shows what a shabby organisation it is.

Burnley will be relegation certainties cramming this backlog. Arsenal clearly advantaged by it as no European football. Spurs look so shit at the mo but hope they hammer them when the game goes ahead. Starting to really hate Newcastle and Arsenal who used to be clubs I had a soft spot for.

[whelk]

I’d like to see the TV companies withhold payments to the team that cried off. That woudl concentrate their minds. Bundesliga and La Liga having no nonsense and rightfully making teams play on.

[trousers]

9 hours ago, HarvSFC said:

Yet, here we are, a midweek where neither Southampton, nor Newcastle are playing, while three other postponed Premier League fixtures are being played and still no announcement

Does smell a tad fishy. I wonder if any of our crack local sports journos are asking the right questions of the PL on this...?

 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

Does smell a tad fishy. I wonder if any of our crack local sports journos are asking the right questions of the PL on this...?

 

We need to get the South Coast Football Expert on the case to take them to task.

[JRM]

Spotted outside Arsenal v Liverpool tonight

 

[jawillwill]

Comoros v Cameroon in the AFCON later. Comoros are being forced to play the game with an outfield player in goal throughout (as one keeper is injured and their other two have Covid).

[SaintBobby]

21 minutes ago, jawillwill said:

Comoros v Cameroon in the AFCON later. Comoros are being forced to play the game with an outfield player in goal throughout (as one keeper is injured and their other two have Covid).

Seriously? 

I'm loathing all the dubious PL cancellations, but that does seem harsh!