Albert

The way I tend to look at this is by looking at our 21 point deduction over the whole season, rather than a lump sum. Think of it as amoritising the deduction, the straight line method, of course. 
Anyhow, on current points, this is the bottom 5 using this method:
20. Cardiff 18
21. Reading 17
22. Peterborough 15
23. Derby 13.3
24. Barnsley 11
We're not well placed, we're basically 4 points below where we'd be on 'par' for survival, but the situation looks more manageable at the very least. 
The thought linked to this is that usually 1 point per game is enough for survival, so the relegation battle can be seen as:
Win: +2 points v rivals
Draw: no change
Loss: -1 point v rivals
When averaged over time. The points deduction is basically making it so the above is the same, but minus 0.46 points per game, ie:
Win: +1.54 v rivals
Draw: -0.46 v rivals
Loss: -1.46 v rivals
So really, we need about 3 wins to put ourselves on par, then maintain about 1.5 points per game from there. It's not impossible, but takes so doing. Honestly, it's doable if we can survive January. A new owner before then, and not losing any key players and there is a real chance of the miracle. I'd say only about 1 in 4, but still...

The way I tend to look at this is by looking at our 21 point deduction over the whole season, rather than a lump sum. Think of it as amoritising the deduction, the straight line method, of course. 
Anyhow, on current points, this is the bottom 5 using this method:
20. Cardiff 18
21. Reading 17
22. Peterborough 15
23. Derby 13.3
24. Barnsley 11
We're not well placed, we're basically 4 points below where we'd be on 'par' for survival, but the situation looks more manageable at the very least. 
The thought linked to this is that usually 1 point per game is enough for survival, so the relegation battle can be seen as:
Win: +2 points v rivals
Draw: no change
Loss: -1 point v rivals
When averaged over time. The points deduction is basically making it so the above is the same, but minus 0.46 points per game, ie:
Win: +1.54 v rivals
Draw: -0.46 v rivals
Loss: -1.46 v rivals
So really, we need about 3 wins to put ourselves on par, then maintain about 1.5 points per game from there. It's not impossible, but takes so doing. Honestly, it's doable if we can survive January. A new owner before then, and not losing any key players and there is a real chance of the miracle. I'd say only about 1 in 4, but still...

The way I tend to look at this is by looking at our 21 point deduction over the whole season, rather than a lump sum. Think of it as amoritising the deduction, the straight line method, of course. 
Anyhow, on current points, this is the bottom 5 using this method:
20. Cardiff 18
21. Reading 17
22. Peterborough 15
23. Derby 13.3
24. Barnsley 11
We're not well placed, we're basically 4 points below where we'd be on 'par' for survival, but the situation looks more manageable at the very least. 
The thought linked to this is that usually 1 point per game is enough for survival, so the relegation battle can be seen as:
Win: +2 points v rivals
Draw: no change
Loss: -1 point v rivals
When averaged over time. The points deduction is basically making it so the above is the same, but minus 0.46 points per game, ie:
Win: +1.54 v rivals
Draw: -0.46 v rivals
Loss: -1.46 v rivals
So really, we need about 3 wins to put ourselves on par, then maintain about 1.5 points per game from there. It's not impossible, but takes so doing. Honestly, it's doable if we can survive January. A new owner before then, and not losing any key players and there is a real chance of the miracle. I'd say only about 1 in 4, but still...

The way I tend to look at this is by looking at our 21 point deduction over the whole season, rather than a lump sum. Think of it as amoritising the deduction, the straight line method, of course. 
Anyhow, on current points, this is the bottom 5 using this method:
20. Cardiff 18
21. Reading 17
22. Peterborough 15
23. Derby 13.3
24. Barnsley 11
We're not well placed, we're basically 4 points below where we'd be on 'par' for survival, but the situation looks more manageable at the very least. 
The thought linked to this is that usually 1 point per game is enough for survival, so the relegation battle can be seen as:
Win: +2 points v rivals
Draw: no change
Loss: -1 point v rivals
When averaged over time. The points deduction is basically making it so the above is the same, but minus 0.46 points per game, ie:
Win: +1.54 v rivals
Draw: -0.46 v rivals
Loss: -1.46 v rivals
So really, we need about 3 wins to put ourselves on par, then maintain about 1.5 points per game from there. It's not impossible, but takes so doing. Honestly, it's doable if we can survive January. A new owner before then, and not losing any key players and there is a real chance of the miracle. I'd say only about 1 in 4, but still...

Anyone else finding it really frustrating that MM started this fight with the EFL, runs away from it, puts us into admin then we have the book thrown at us and the EFL can carry on with their bullying ways and we’re left to look like the bad guys hated by everyone.
He had two options for me keep fighting what he started whatever the cost, if the EFL are in the wrong let everybody see it.
Or option two should’ve held his hands up, he’s not as smart as he thought he was, take the 9 point deduction and sell the club for whatever he could.
Instead he’s royally shafted us it’s unforgivable, no matter how much he put in, his ego has ruined our club. 

In a sense, just going by those numbers, even if there's a 1/20 chance of the appeal being successful, and those gained points being what gives us safety, the appeal has an expected payoff of £0. Realistically, the chances of success are likely far more than that, making it a worthwhile venture in that sense. 

Charlton Athletic are set to sue Derby County for £25 million after the ball burst in the 1946 FA Cup Final. If it hadn’t burst then we might have won or got some good players or something, said a Charlton spokesman. Meanwhile Ipswich Town also announced they were going to sue Derby County due to some reason or other. We might have won more games if they hadn’t beaten us in them, cited an Ipswich spokesman. It simply wasn’t fair that they had better players and scored more goals. We want £40 million and Martyn Waghorn back. 
Meanwhile American fast food chain McDonalds announced that they were going to sue Derby County for fielding a player with their brand name. Flagrant breach of copyright, claimed a spokesman for the evil corporation.
In other news the EFL announced a further 9 points deduction for Derby County after the midlands side finished their 0-0 draw against Swansea with 5 full backs on the pitch. Everyone knows you should have two full backs, said a source close to Rick Parry. Derby ended the game with 5 players who full back could be considered their tecognised position. That is clearly too many. We checked the rules but couldn’t find anything specific about this so we all agreed that 3 points per extra full back sounded about right. 

Meanwhile Wycombe have announced they aren’t going to sue Derby County for getting them relegated by buying Nick Blackman when they were two leagues below after they realised it was totally ridiculous and so far fetched as to be laughable. 

 
*Has anything ever gone wrong with your football club? Not won enough points? Let in last minute winners to players who can’t even drive and park their car properly? Why not sue Derby County? Contact Gibson and Parry Solicitors for your claim form. 

What the hell
How on earth can they sue for that beyond a joke now.
?

Honestly, the worst we've ever had. We're in a financial hole, and are down on assets, the club being in its weakest ever position. He gambled on the Premier League, but did so with the club's future, not his. It's also hard to be angry at the EFL when this is the ultimate outcome, and the entire point of all the rules and regulations is to help prevent these moments. 
I should add that, to be fair, I've never really been much of a fan of him, and felt that his tenure has been a chaotic mess from top to bottom, best seen through how we've dealt with managers.
Let's hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel to all of this. Ultimately, I think Mel has indeed gotten us out of the Championship, and for a long time. The issue was the direction. 

Take the season ticket money, own the stadium, then calls in the administrator.
Any last sympathies and respect for Mel have gone.
Without being crass, I'm glad my Dad isn't witnessing this. 

Honestly, the worst we've ever had. We're in a financial hole, and are down on assets, the club being in its weakest ever position. He gambled on the Premier League, but did so with the club's future, not his. It's also hard to be angry at the EFL when this is the ultimate outcome, and the entire point of all the rules and regulations is to help prevent these moments. 
I should add that, to be fair, I've never really been much of a fan of him, and felt that his tenure has been a chaotic mess from top to bottom, best seen through how we've dealt with managers.
Let's hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel to all of this. Ultimately, I think Mel has indeed gotten us out of the Championship, and for a long time. The issue was the direction. 

13/14 - GSE's building finally bears fruit and we ahave a young competetive exciting team. Me goes "oh hello"
14/15 - A second go is derailed by injuries. Mel takes sole ownership. McLaren is sacked for disloyalty.
15/16 - An awful lot of Mel's money is burned on an unsuccessful attempt to get to the prem.
16/17 - Hendrick is sold against manager's wishes. Vydra and Anya come in to little effect. Peason is sacked very quickly. McLaren does a resuce job but is also sacked because ol Sankie has a charming smile.
17/18 - Tom ince and Will Huges are sold. Rowett does on a more limited budget reach the play offs. Derby fans see that rarest of phenominoms, a defense that knows what it's doing, for a season. Chairman Mel tells ol Snakie there's no money left. Before.......selling Vydra...and....
18/19 - sells himself Pride Park for substancially more than anyone previously thought it was worth. Then spends the money he paid himself on hiring Frank Lampard, loaning three very good prspects and signing some "not very good value" players for a last role of the dice.
19/20 - the need to be more rational flickers for a moment, Cocu is signed on a long term deal to bring through youth and start building towards sustainable sucess. moments before he also announces, "I've also signed Wayen Rooney on a really fancy sponsorship deal and promised him he gets to be mananger next" by the way, all the budget is in Wayne Rooney's wages. EFL "Issues" start to hover around.
20/21 - It's bad. Cocu is Sacked. It's still bad. We stay up on the last day. Thanks to a goal at Cardiff.
21/22 - into Admin.
Well, ultimatly, it's been a ride. Ultimatly, it's ended in disaster. If that were all there was to it, it'd be sad, but we'd all live with it.
BUT
This has not just been a ride.
This has been a story of ego, mismanagment, utter idiocy, poor decisions, and ultimatly, the fact that all this is a result of decisions Mel Morris has taken.
On a 1-10 scale it gets 1.
What is most rage inducing is that, with even a tiny bit of sense it couldve not worked out and ended as a 6-7 for trying and failing, it wasn't boring, but it did not need to end in disaster. Even now, as look down the barrel, it's decisions taken by Mel that have robbed us even of a chance to get something sorted.
OK 1 is too generous.
 

Honestly, the worst we've ever had. We're in a financial hole, and are down on assets, the club being in its weakest ever position. He gambled on the Premier League, but did so with the club's future, not his. It's also hard to be angry at the EFL when this is the ultimate outcome, and the entire point of all the rules and regulations is to help prevent these moments. 
I should add that, to be fair, I've never really been much of a fan of him, and felt that his tenure has been a chaotic mess from top to bottom, best seen through how we've dealt with managers.
Let's hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel to all of this. Ultimately, I think Mel has indeed gotten us out of the Championship, and for a long time. The issue was the direction. 

The point is that if you're not vaccinated, it's easier for you to be part of the chain that leads to harm to others. Being vaccinated, hence, reduces everyone else's risk. The same goes for all restrictions, as they are all reducing risk. You need to see it more as reducing risk of transmission, than it being about who specifically did the transmitting. 
If you are in a car accident, it is only the people in the cars that are injured, but with Covid, it keeps getting passed on; car accidents aren't infectious.

At some point shouldn't mean while 40% of your population remains vulnerable I wouldn't think. 
Ironically, of course, the whole point of Covid-zero is that we're really not living under much in the way of restrictions at all. The UK, on the other hand, is 'out of restrictions', but consumer confidence, etc, will take a hit for years to come, particularly given cases, hospitalisations, and deaths are climbing again sadly.
Honestly, a similar number of people in many countries are voting that way even now. It wasn't a vote for an oppressively regime though, it was a vote for an ideological group. 
People aren't being oppressed by asking for restrictions, it is they themselves putting them there. Oppression is where it is being done to control the population, as opposed to being done by the population to fight a common foe.  
I do find it funny that the Murdoch propaganda machine is so wedded to this narrative though. 
The polls, etc, don't back that position. Every society has fringe elements, but on the ground, and through the polls, it damn clear that Covid-zero has broad wide reaching support here.
...and yes, I would argue that people who march the streets claiming that lockdowns, vaccines, etc don't work, while waving Q Anon flags, etc, are nutters. I would argue that people who literally try to pick fights with police horses are nutters. I would argue that people, committing crimes on cameras, but out of spite are not wearing face coverings, likely the only time in their lives they'd do such a thing without one, are nutters.  
No military here.
The point in NSW is that the defense forces are assisting the police etc. It's not armed military forces marching the streets.
Yes, committing crimes gets you arrested. Funny that. 
The larger fines, etc, have broad support, as again, people aren't fans of selfish actions. Societies bring in such laws, as societies make decisions about how they are governed. It's hardly complicated. 
Imagine people questioning other laws by similar arguments. 
"Watch this video of police arresting a mother in front of her children just for driving a stolen car?! WHAT IS SOCIETY COMING TO?!" 
It's like how the then American president was seemingly gleeful discussing the news of New Zealand's Covid-free run breaking last year, basically discussing it like their Covid-zero days were over. They were wrong, of course, but it's an interesting attitude. 
...mostly because the UK just kept letting it burn through. Per capita, the Victorian outbreak was the equivalent of about 6000 per day in the UK, which the UK has been under many times since the first wave. The UK could have gone down the same road, it chose not to. 

The cost was our economy being one of the best performing globally. 
Bit of a weird article, that seems to lack an understanding for how Australia's political system actually functions. That's not really the topic of this thread though. 
I do like the idea of vaccine passports being seen as a thin end of the wedge for some kind of attack on democracy, given that vaccine requirements for travel, etc, existed long before the pandemic in many regions, etc. 

At some point shouldn't mean while 40% of your population remains vulnerable I wouldn't think. 
Ironically, of course, the whole point of Covid-zero is that we're really not living under much in the way of restrictions at all. The UK, on the other hand, is 'out of restrictions', but consumer confidence, etc, will take a hit for years to come, particularly given cases, hospitalisations, and deaths are climbing again sadly.
Honestly, a similar number of people in many countries are voting that way even now. It wasn't a vote for an oppressively regime though, it was a vote for an ideological group. 
People aren't being oppressed by asking for restrictions, it is they themselves putting them there. Oppression is where it is being done to control the population, as opposed to being done by the population to fight a common foe.  
I do find it funny that the Murdoch propaganda machine is so wedded to this narrative though. 
The polls, etc, don't back that position. Every society has fringe elements, but on the ground, and through the polls, it damn clear that Covid-zero has broad wide reaching support here.
...and yes, I would argue that people who march the streets claiming that lockdowns, vaccines, etc don't work, while waving Q Anon flags, etc, are nutters. I would argue that people who literally try to pick fights with police horses are nutters. I would argue that people, committing crimes on cameras, but out of spite are not wearing face coverings, likely the only time in their lives they'd do such a thing without one, are nutters.  
No military here.
The point in NSW is that the defense forces are assisting the police etc. It's not armed military forces marching the streets.
Yes, committing crimes gets you arrested. Funny that. 
The larger fines, etc, have broad support, as again, people aren't fans of selfish actions. Societies bring in such laws, as societies make decisions about how they are governed. It's hardly complicated. 
Imagine people questioning other laws by similar arguments. 
"Watch this video of police arresting a mother in front of her children just for driving a stolen car?! WHAT IS SOCIETY COMING TO?!" 
It's like how the then American president was seemingly gleeful discussing the news of New Zealand's Covid-free run breaking last year, basically discussing it like their Covid-zero days were over. They were wrong, of course, but it's an interesting attitude. 
...mostly because the UK just kept letting it burn through. Per capita, the Victorian outbreak was the equivalent of about 6000 per day in the UK, which the UK has been under many times since the first wave. The UK could have gone down the same road, it chose not to. 

The UK is at around 60% fully vaccinated right now. 
Also, the point is that at 80%+, we can control outbreaks without the need for lockdowns. That starts from the assumption that current outbreaks are under control at that point. The UK isn't in such a position. 
It's not about zero deaths necessarily, it's about cases creating more cases. When you allow some, you get more, so the Covid zero approach protects lives and livelihoods at the same time. 
Authoritarian implies that it's something that the government is driving, in any case, when this move towards Covid zero policies in Australia was driven by what the electorates wanted. WA's government is hugely popular, and won 53/59 seats earlier this year in their election, 59.9% of the popular vote, and 69.7% on two party preferred. 

80%+ fully vaccinated is seen as the figure that will allow us to move away from lockdowns. The reason for this is that at that point, the effective R number can be kept below 1 without such harsh restrictions. The only issue is that the modelling underpinning that required us to keep the Covid zero approach until then, but NSW has messed that up. Going to be an interesting few months, though things are virtually where I am. 

The issue around NSW has been that they didn't follow the health advice to lockdown at first, and this was cheered on as a great win by the Murdoch press. They tried to go the UK route of track and trace, and exactly as predicted by everyone else in the country, it went pear shaped rapidly. They, until today, still hadn't lockdown the state, instead going by regions, and they still haven't locked down to the extent that other states did. 
Ultimately though, Australia's economy has, overall, performed drastically better with this strategy than most others have. The issue now is that NSW mismanaged themselves into this mess trying to play politics with a virus, again underlining why just letting it burn just doesn't work. 
If we had a competent PM, this could all of been avoided of course, with some kind of national strategy, rather than just leaving it to states individually. That said, given Morrison's mistakes, it's probably been best that he's been asleep at the wheel in that regard.
In the last year, I've been in lockdown for 10 days, and nobody in my state has died, let alone anyone I care about. Nobody I know has lost their job, and our economy as a whole has grown beyond the pre-Covid baseline. I'd say our strategy has worked pretty well. 

Get in!
We've really come to life with Sibley on, and Stretton has looked dangerous leading up to that strike. 

What you seem to keep missing is that the suggestion here is that it's people who have actually caught Covid-19, not just people in general. The disease cannot be spread by people who have not caught it, and the vaccines do prevent people from catching it.
Given we already know that the research is about viral loads, they're using the same kind of techniques as PCR tests use, which means that it cannot be referring to people who do not have detectable infections, as these people by definition do not have viral loads that are detectable, let alone as large as unvaccinated people. 
So the key point there is that regardless of what this would end up showing, if it actually turns out to be the case, it doesn't change that vaccination does indeed greatly reduce transmission. 
That isn't being pedantic, it's kind of the whole point. Your were trying to imply that CDC content was being downplayed, but you weren't actually posting CDC content. 
Twitter is a private business, they can censor whatever they want, it's kind of the deal with private platforms. In many ways, they're actually legally mandated to by many governments because of the way that laws around what does and does not constitute publishing has changed in the last few years around the World. 
They're basically wading through a storm of random claims from all sides, and they're trying to get on top of that. Legitimate stuff will occasionally be caught in that, but it doesn't mean that it's the intention of the action. 
As to your specific examples, at this point, no, it is not 'more than likely' that it leaked from a Wuhan lab. It's an idea that is being investigated, but the prevailing hypothesis for it's origins remains that it is a zoonosis. 
As to Ivermectin, the issue is around telling people that they should take the stuff, not just discussing whether there is merit in actually researching it. To my understanding, the paper that kicked off a lot of the controversy got pulled due to ethics issues, and there are more general doubts about the methodology, etc. It'll be interesting to see if other researchers can replicate the original claims.

What you seem to keep missing is that the suggestion here is that it's people who have actually caught Covid-19, not just people in general. The disease cannot be spread by people who have not caught it, and the vaccines do prevent people from catching it.
Given we already know that the research is about viral loads, they're using the same kind of techniques as PCR tests use, which means that it cannot be referring to people who do not have detectable infections, as these people by definition do not have viral loads that are detectable, let alone as large as unvaccinated people. 
So the key point there is that regardless of what this would end up showing, if it actually turns out to be the case, it doesn't change that vaccination does indeed greatly reduce transmission. 
That isn't being pedantic, it's kind of the whole point. Your were trying to imply that CDC content was being downplayed, but you weren't actually posting CDC content. 
Twitter is a private business, they can censor whatever they want, it's kind of the deal with private platforms. In many ways, they're actually legally mandated to by many governments because of the way that laws around what does and does not constitute publishing has changed in the last few years around the World. 
They're basically wading through a storm of random claims from all sides, and they're trying to get on top of that. Legitimate stuff will occasionally be caught in that, but it doesn't mean that it's the intention of the action. 
As to your specific examples, at this point, no, it is not 'more than likely' that it leaked from a Wuhan lab. It's an idea that is being investigated, but the prevailing hypothesis for it's origins remains that it is a zoonosis. 
As to Ivermectin, the issue is around telling people that they should take the stuff, not just discussing whether there is merit in actually researching it. To my understanding, the paper that kicked off a lot of the controversy got pulled due to ethics issues, and there are more general doubts about the methodology, etc. It'll be interesting to see if other researchers can replicate the original claims.

Once upon a time we eradicated smallpox. Infectious diseases don't need a 'safety blanket', they need not to spread. It's not about 'personal fears', and it's good for a whole society, notably including the vulnerable within it. 
There are those in society who simply cannot be protected by their own immune systems due to issues with said immune system. The idea of just leaving them to die because you want to not have a vaccine for ideological reasons is silly. 
Being part of a society means you do what you can to help that society, it always has. Quarantine measures, etc have been used since ancient times. Mass vaccination programs have also been many times in the past century. The issue now is that we have elements of our society happy and primed to accept propaganda from a few dodgy actors looking to make a name from themselves in the antivax space. 

The long term strategy is to relax restrictions further once we've reached some targets for vaccination rates. The current modelling suggests that at 80%+ vaccination, with the delta strain being the prevalent strain, that minor outbreaks can be resolved without lockdowns, etc. 
What that means for returning travelers is still somewhat in the air, but in the next 4-6 months, that works given all the positives gained through the strategy overall. Less deaths, less damage to the economy, and less people who will suffer long term complications from Covid-19. 
It's contact tracing, not lockdowns, that have allowed Australia to pursue elimination. Lockdowns have only really been used for two purposes:
1. To give time to ringfence outbreaks, ie give the contact tracers time to do their jobs. 
2. Act as a backstop when the decision to do a snap lockdown has come too late (see Victoria last year, NSW now). 
You don't need 100% protection, you just need enough to make it so spread isn't viable anymore. For the Delta strain, that appears to be 80-85% vaccination with vaccinations as effective against the delta strain as AstraZeneca and Pfizer after two doses. 
As above though, the long term strategy is to use a phased approach out of this. As Scomo said, there won't be any 'freedom day' here. He implied that you'd have to be a idiot to go for something like that.