Jump to content

Stive Pesley

Member
  • Content Count

    6,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stive Pesley

  1. Ah yes - all coming back to me now. Feels like another lifetime already
  2. I was thinking that it must be coming up to a year since the last home game at Pride Park, but couldn't for the life of me remember when it was or who we played. Just looked and it was vs Blackburn Rovers. We won 3-0. Personally I can't remember a damn thing about the match - my only real memory was being astonished at the queue in the South Stands toilets for blokes washing their hands! I do also remember being conscious of the fact that it might be the last game for a while, but that's it Anyone else remember much about it?
  3. Has anyone watched Inhuman Resources on Netflix? It still blows my mind that Eric Cantona is a surprisingly good actor. There can't be too many people who have had 2 such diverse careers in life. Or maybe he's just the French Vinnie Jones 😂 Anyway - it's a good watch, the story seems a bit far-fetched but apparently the central premise is based on a true story. There is a decent twist in the middle, and a satisfying ending. Only 6 episodes and you need to be OK with subtitles, but otherwise definitely interested to hear others thoughts on it
  4. This quite often happens to me, although I only hit the wall if I'm facing that side of the bed
  5. Philosophically it's a very difficult one - you could argue that it's very difficult to function in today's society without identifying ID already. Passports, driving licenses, National Insurance number, bank accounts - to do without all of them, you'd literally have to live in a squat and operate 100% on the black market But somehow the idea of a new National ID card or a Vaccination Status card feels like an erosion of liberty too far - and I'd be against it But I dont fully know why - compared to 30-40 years ago we are already tracked and monitotred through our lives in incredible
  6. I'm no virologist but I thought the process of mutation wasn't really a deliberate act on the part of the virus - just that mutations happen randomly all the time, and if a random mutation happens to be one that makes it easier to infect (like the kent variant) or in future evade the vector of the vaccine, then that strain will automatically become the most prevalent?
  7. It seems like a positive that so far the vaccine companies don't think the mutations are evading the vaccine. Could be that the new RNA vaccines are a bit more resilient? Or we just don't know. Another positive is that this is surely the most studied virus in the history of humankind, so we have to be hopeful that the vaccines can be tweaked and boosters offered when needed 🤞
  8. I like the idea of a roadmap - lets everyone know where they stand. I said in the old thread that friends who have work which is impacted by the lockdowns find the lack of visibility the worst thing to deal with. Particularly when we were in the tier system Is it too fast or too slow? Hard to know, but I wish they'd publish some of the data points behind it, rather than this x weeks after y and no earlier than z Didn't BJ say he would be driven by data rather than dates? This plan seems to show the opposite I'd have preferred an approach that was more "when the infection rate/ho
  9. I wasn't sure if I was reading a post in the Covid thread or the testimony of a serial killer 😂
  10. It did, yes. The two main points I'm raising are that - in retrospect 1) if we'd entered earlier, it would have been shorter and 2) we exited badly without having a realistic plan for keeping the virus at bay I think a lot of the good will people built up in that first lockdown was lost after the summer. Feels like we all did our bit and we were let down by the the management of restrictions between September and January
  11. Looking back, I think it could have come in a bit earlier. The way the Government handled it - we all knew it was coming for at least a week prior to the official start of lockdown on March 23rd. The "advance notice" policies were stupid - just gave people a reason for one last hurrah. But fundamentally we knew the direction and speed of the trajectory, so if we'd locked down earlier, the quicker we could have exited And then factor in all the other elements of the track and trace fiasco and the lack of screening for travellers - we weren't helping ourselves at all their - and it feels li
  12. What's weird is that you are saying here, exactly what I said. Lockdowns can work, but we've really got ours wrong - to the point where our outcomes have been in the same ballpark (ie equally terrible) as a country like Sweden that didn't enforce a strict lockdown. So I'm happy to agree that we're on the same page in that respect So why is it that when I said the above, I got @TexasRamjumping straight on me telling me I'm wrong, but has let you off the hook? The good news is that I think he's the last man standing in the thread who still swears blind that "lockdowns don't work"
  13. Sort of - I'm agreeing that OUR lockdown in England has been badly implemented and poorly observed, and therefore has had much worse outcomes than other countries who have implemented more restrictions at the appropriate times, and in some cases that outcome has been as bad as countries who have implemented much softer restrictions Again it's causation argument - badly implemented, badly timed lockdowns drive less social adherence - and therefore have to last longer as they are far less effective. If we'd done the lockdowns better they would have worked better and been shorter and we woul
  14. But you are the one that continually talks as if you're being forcefully restrained in a basement.
  15. Are you going to make me reiterate my point again? Places that have done strict lockdowns badly (ie UK) and places that have had less severe lockdowns managed properly and adhered to sensibly by the public seem to have broadly similar outcomes. And by that I mean high infection rates and high death rates. OK I can accept that. But if the outcomes are the same - and they are both bad - it's not really an argument. Unless your argument is - I wanted all those same number of people dead BUT with me being able to go to the pub/football/mates house whenever I please. But it's a
  16. This is where I fail to see the argument - it's obviously both, not a one or the other situation. I will not stand for this idea that we've been through all these restrictions for no reason. You only have to look at the graphs to see the infection rates/hospitalisations/deaths inversely tracking the level of restrictions. I've hated the restrictions as much as anyone, but they do "attack the virus" and yes they are an attack on our lives too - but a necessary one. Nobody who died of covid uttered the last words "I wish we'd locked down less" Yes Florida and California have
  17. Can't you just agree to round it up?
  18. And to be fair I dont think anyone posting in this thread is either. Or elsewhere- I've not seen anyone advocating for it anywhere. It feels like it's only the usual media channels making it a debate for the sake of their ratings. People are literally arguing against an opinion that no one actually holds
  19. Well I was using the word "half" figuratively to indicate a split - the precise details of that split, I don't pretend to know - nor could anyone The problem is that the people in the latter group of "rebels" - and the reporting of their actions - have such a loud presence on social media, it can feel like a bigger problem than it is. Like you, I only see minimal amounts of mild rule-bending between my immediate friends/family but the news channels report every indiscretion with glee and the Icke-type ringleaders stoke up an army of keyboard warriors on social media who love to boast abou
  20. Do they? I'm no fan of the current administration, but I dont get that impression at all. I think you're right that they are just abdicating the decision. They seem incapable of any sort of direction. Just a never ending series of changing their minds on everything That's a weird statement - you want them to either force it on companies to do it, or force companies NOT to do it? Both of those sound like fascististic authoritarian moves to me. But yes, you would know where you stood in the same way that the the Russians knew where they stood under Stalin! Not sure if you missed
  21. That someone can't call it "absolutely horrific" that independent companies might choose to only employ people based on a legal selection criteria, if they're also going to complain when independent companies are regulated to adhere to things like the "Rooney Rule" You either want companies to be free from overly-oppressive state regulation or you don't
  22. I like how both replies have ignored my actual point, and focussed on the tongue in cheek example I gave 🙂 I thought the 100% prevention of hospitalisation/death was only a small sample, and there were no true figures yet? Even so - I'm sure it's going to be pretty high, but still you're both assuming that all the customers have been vaccinated - some may not have been, and you're also assuming that preventing hospitalisation/death is the only outcome. Someone could still get pretty sick and have a ruined holiday Plus - they have to share hotels, flights etc with other non-Saga custo
  23. Well that's kind of where I was going with it - it would be a sticky wicket if someone were to be against the idea of something like the Rooney Rule (which only applies to interviewing - not to hiring) as being overly prescriptive on employers - but then also complained that the idea of employers being free to choose who they wanted to actually employ based on the legal criteria of their choosing being "absolutely horrific" But your right - the choice is with the individuals then as to whether they continue to use that employer's services Someone gave the example of Saga - the holida
  24. Sex and skin colour are protected characteristics, so that would be illegal. Weight is not (i don't think?) and could be legal if there were valid health and safety reasons for it. But I know you're being rhetorical - it's a bit of a click-baity article really. Any employer can add clauses like this if they wish to, but I doubt many will as they'd have to be able to justify it. But don't we agree that employers should be free to make their own decisions on this? The opposite would be forcing employers to take on people that they might not want to and that can't be right either
  25. And as I said the other day- it doesn't appear to be a fully licensed cancer drug yet, there is almost no mention of it anywhere if you search for the drug name without the word covid and results dated before the report about it curing covid patients. It does sound promising though, and I'm sure the manufacturers are doing all they can now to follow up the covid angle. Like with a lot of drugs - they end up being useful for stuff other than their intended purpose. But I'm sure there is a long way to go, and I'm quite glad that the media aren't going crazy hyping it up at this early stag
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.