BTRFTG

Lest not forget Ian Rush when asked why he struggled during his time at Juventus replied: "...it was like living in a foreign country ..."

Quite why Saturday would be a more dangerous environment for the highly transmissible Omicron version of the virus is beyond me, plus of course it hasn't been around all season. Rather I'd have thought having crowds of folks crammed in close proximity within concourses would be an ideal transmission environment? Personally I find the prospect of mass infection in public health terms neither funny nor tragic though, as previous, you clearly have other ideas.

STs not withstanding we're joining you in sitting it out. God forbid anybody who does go and something unfortunate happens starts pointing fingers at City for encouraging crowds to the concourses early doors. Folks know the risks, not worth it from our perspective, but if you do gamble and 'lose' save us the usual blame everybody other than oneself rhetoric that pervades these days. As for Hearn & the PDC at Ally Pally tonight - reckless not to be more proactive in protecting folks.

City I've no idea but as a kid I think the answer for English football used to be Stan Mortensen (14 or so?)

Best being that when this first happened a few years ago the Daily Mail reported it as fact and sought an interview, which brilliantly Taff & Co exploited.

I call it the 'Eddie Large' attribution. Now the much loved comedian was admitted to the BRI 17 years after he'd received a heart transplant. All those 'extra' years enjoying life , courtesy of a doner's selflessness and thoughtfulness for others, plus a very potent cocktail of medication. And after 17 years his transplanted heart began to fail, hence his admission, where for several months he was cared for all whilst facing the inevitable. That he contracted Covid (how might he have avoided it in hospital,) is a matter of record. But was it the virus that finally did for him, as was sensationally reported, or rather the heart failure and associated problems for which he'd been admitted?

Not strange in the slightest. You undertook what many suggest are state imposed constraints (they aren't) though constraints they are and you didn't need to, so why did you bother? Now had you not had a passport your passage would most likely have been less easy as you enjoyed. For one you would probably have found that carriers would have declined to carry you had you simply turned up and so attempted. You most likely would have been returned by the French authorities had you not met their demands. Dual standards?

Out of interest do you and your kids hold passports? If so, why? They aren't compulsory, you don't need them to travel (you may happily make your own arrangements,) you wouldn't have to provide personal information to get them, for some folks travel to obtain them, plus you'd avoid the expense of having to procure them. Now that's a lot of imposition and effort for something so personal.

From what I've been told by those who know a thing or two, those who've been vaccinated have few symptoms to what appears to be a less harmful version virus, the problem being London ITUs are crammed with non-vaccinated cases and are pretty much full. It's the simple math that if only 3% get ill and with 5m adults yet to receive any vaccine if masses become infected at the same time there's a problem.

Yes a couple of pre Xmas meetings/Parties and some non-related cares. Its the sheer volume that's amazing Just goes to show the point about gathering together and not being able to avoid it seems to hold true. Also, some of the shows my wife (and I ) were due to attend have been decimated by having to replace stand-ins. You can see why the Premier games had to be canned despite precautions taken.

Absolutely top drawer Twitter account. Taff Goose is God ( not dead...) The tweet today to The Sun was priceless.

No scaremongering but having not known anybody test positive since the schools went back my wife and I know of over 40 people who tested positive TODAY. Thankfully they're fully vaccinated so no serious symptoms as yet but when they say this new variant is a super-spreader they ain't kidding.

Well, from where I am the measures proposed for Saturday make little sense given the Omicron variant is running riot up here. Few getting sick but the world and his wife getting it. I'm triple inoculated, but not against Omicron, so I could be infected with that strain yet remain asymptomatic. There's little point in asking for a negative LFT as tests are in shorter supply than a City player scoring a hat trick this season. The club's proposal to promote getting fans in early to scoff and quaff in the enclosed concourse appears reckless to say the least. They should reconsider that strategy immediately. If attendance is still permitted and they've any sense they'll close all concessions and have masked supporters make straight to their seats and the open air, with frequent sanitizing of handrails et al.

More apposite for advertisers I note nobody on this thread references whatever it is appears on the hoardings? Could you name any of the companies or products advertised? Yeah, me neither.....

Lest not forget whilst traditionalists laughed at the idea Brentford were one of the first clubs to sign up to the use of 'data' in driving their recruitment process. At the time I believe only Liverpool, Leicester & Man City were signed up to the concept. What does a statistician know about football that an ex pro doesn't? Quite a lot results appear to suggest.

Not forgetting their figure will look very different in a couple of years post Premier income. Their model is certainly one to mirror.

Nothing finer than seeing a player who's been abused all game give it back to his abusers when scoring. Even better when not remotely apologetic for so doing. Across the pond Aaron Rodgers gave us a fine example against the Bears, Sunday. In their last meeting he was filmed close up repeatedly yelling at their goading fans: " I Own You ..." hence media made a big thing of it this time around. Not remotely apologetic he 'owned' them again Sunday and wasn't afraid to celebrate it. Love it ....

Stadium income is relatively immaterial as it accounts for less than one third of turnover, thus the redevelopment argument is a red herring. Ticket sales bring in about the same as City receive from The Premier in solidarity payment, so those moaning about the 'unfairness' of parachute payments think on......

Utter madness but what the graphic actually shows is wages are pretty much immaterial once you reach The Premier and are strong enough to stay there. Where it proves catastrophic is in trying to reach to The Premier and failing to get and stay there. If you accept such gambling to be reckless you also, by default, have to accept The Premier is now a closed shop and we might as well not bother about getting there.

Again you conflate issues that are not linked. Were Governments able to raise tax in the way you state they would. The fact they don't, despite running catastrophic deficits, confirms as much. You may state US public healthcare is 'limited', though it's over double what we spend per head here. For sure costs are higher but that delivers higher standards of healthcare. You'll also be aware of the extraordinary levels of private health incentives offered by the US Government, forgoing tax collected such employees and employers may additionally invest in their own health. That's actually quite a smart move we should look at over here. Similarly, you choose to directly correlate health outcomes with spending, when it's far more complex than that. Were it true we'd follow the Italians and slash health spending given their enviable longevity and frugally funded health system. One of the major reasons US and UK health outcomes appear worse than might be anticipated lies with ethnic composition, but few wish to talk about such matters as genetic predisposition to illness or consanguinity. One can't choose ones genes but differentially impact they sure do.

It highlighted there is no science based logic in your argument. Ditto your thoughts on flu vaccines, and they aren't simple mix and match. Like corona they isolate and use the latest mutations to inform changes, but all are discrete. Some flu strains are far more deadly than others. That was one of the reasons all the numpties who criticised the Government early doors for having supposed higher death rates when covid first hit neglected that when H3N2 hit in 2018, Germany (amongst others) had significantly higher deaths amongst the vulnerable than the UK as, getting in early when purchasing their annual flu vaccines, they missed out on the additional 'aussie flu' components added to the late UK orders. Many elderly Germans didn't die of Covid as they'd died two years earlier from H3N2. That you think this an 'experiment' when it's public health protection in extremis says it all.

Ah, you're happy for others to take the risk, just not you. With your medical insight you also appear to have neglected: All vaccines issued to date were subject to (as you call them) minority control trials; Like all viruses the influenza versions mutate, such each season northern and southern hemisphere they're slightly different. Using your 'science based logic' we might as well not bother developing vaccines at all given for each 5 year testing cycle you consider the safe minimum we'll have passed through a minimum 9 subsequent variations. Strange, therefore, you consent to having a flu vaccine that's barely a few months out of the lab but not one for a corona virus?

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news but there is no minimum term for trials and approvals. As a Stage One Trial guinea pig I should know. You do realize, don't you, that were we to all adopt your degree of caution in refusing to take any medication that hadn't been fully assured no new medicines would ever become available? How might you propose scientists test and evaluate using your logic?

I'm afraid you did as you have here, conflating personal and commercial taxation. You've actually answered your own question as to why commercial taxation is useless in underpinning the costs of running a health service - there's no way to guarantee income. Turnover is already taxed by VAT so driving away business isn't a good idea, profits targeted by corporation tax, but you can't guarantee how much profit a company makes in any given period. If companies chose to reinvest in the business then whilst shareholders benefit the Chancellor sees nothing. I didn't conclude increasing commercial taxation was out of the question but the types of money you'd need for the NHS would require legislation beyond these shores and I'm uncertain (other than declaring war) how any UK Government might guarantee delivering that? Government could unilaterally increase tax at risk businesses would decant elsewhere, as they've indicated they would. As for Northern European healthcare, which countries were you thinking of? In respect of the larger nations UK public funding is on a par if not higher than most (save in those nations a far higher percentage of citizens additionally contribute via the private sector, which is what we in the UK appear reluctant to do.) In places like Scandinavia you first have to factor in population size and demographics, they're very small cf UK, but other than Norway and it's vast oil wealth, public investment isn't so dissimilar, though they, too, pay more than UK via private charging as, slightly more than here, not all 'free at point of access' is actually 'free'. Remember, the USA has by a country mile the highest per capita PUBLIC funding of healthcare in the world (more than double the UK,) yet folks love to deride what's on offer there. We moan how expensive healthcare is there , the same expense over here most don't wish to pay via direct taxation.

Good points all hence my stressing data informs nothing and it's interpretation in subjective.