Nakhi Wells?

[BCFC OF HUSKVARNA]

Injured? USA?

[And Its Smith]

Covid 

[Chessels Chick]

Tested positive 

[Shelton’s Love Gravy]

3 minutes ago, Chessels Chick said:

Tested positive 

Hope he’s been jabbed!

[Ziderarmy]

Unvaccinated isn’t he? 

[BS4 on Tour...]

*Nahki ...

[Fordy62]

29 minutes ago, Chessels Chick said:

Tested positive 

For being a waste of money. 

[fanjita]

6 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

For being a complete waste of money. 

 

[brad blit]

Found it weird last night that Wells wasnt in the squad considering he scored at the weekend, and could have even been selected to freshen things up!

Been told this morning that he's had bust up with Pearson over weekend, strangely enough regarding covid and vaccinations, not sure if anyone has heard anything similar.....

[Red-Robbo]

Fleming confirmed Wells has Covid. Said it last night. There's an existing thread on it. 

[Greedo]

Covid nut job or not, the sooner we cut our losses on him the better. Waste of wages. 

[MarcusX]

1 minute ago, brad blit said:

Found it weird last night that Wells wasnt in the squad considering he scored at the weekend, and could have even been selected to freshen things up!

Been told this morning that he's had bust up with Pearson over weekend, strangely enough regarding covid and vaccinations, not sure if anyone has heard anything similar.....

He tested positive for covid

[Greedo]

2 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

He tested positive for covid

Tested positive for being shite. 

[brad blit]

Sorry yes i knew he had covid. I was told that there was still a bust up over weekend regarding covid/vaccinations so guessing perhaps Pearson wasnt happy with how he caught it..... 

Just passing on what i heard

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, brad blit said:

Sorry yes i knew he had covid. I was told that there was still a bust up over weekend regarding covid/vaccinations so guessing perhaps Pearson wasnt happy with how he caught it..... 

Just passing on what i heard

 

I doubt Pearson phoned him up to call him out over that. Anyone can catch Covid. 

That said, Wells being a Covidiot on social media is yet another reason why I doubt the club want him here next season. His low goals return per minutes played and his high wages will be much more important though. 

[Jerseybean]

Curtis Fleming has confirmed that ‘Nahki Wells' surprise absence in the squad was due to a positive Covid-19 test earlier in the week with the striker set to return on Friday.’

[maxjak]

What a shame he didn't bother to get vaccinated?  Not in least bit irresponsible...I'm sure his team mates are pleased?  

[redsquirrel]

you can see the script now,nahki gets long covid and recouperates on full wack wages until hes fit again the week before his contract expires

[MC RISK77]

1 hour ago, brad blit said:

Sorry yes i knew he had covid. I was told that there was still a bust up over weekend regarding covid/vaccinations so guessing perhaps Pearson wasnt happy with how he caught it..... 

Just passing on what i heard

Not doubting your sources at all- but why would anyone have a bust up about covid vaccinations?

[The Nest Egg]

Can't think of anything witty.

He's absolute overpaid dog s***.

Thank you and good night.

 

[Mad Cyril]

There is a good player in there that we have ruined.

[The Original OTIB]

3 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

There is a good player in there that we have ruined.

It's what we do, 'tis tradition now.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

There is a good player in there that we have ruined.

 One and a half decent seasons from him at this level.  15/16 at Huddersfield and the half season he was on loan at QPR before Burnley sold him to us.  Not really a great return apart from that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

25 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 One and a half decent seasons from him at this level.  15/16 at Huddersfield and the half season he was on loan at QPR before Burnley sold him to us.  Not really a great return apart from that.

Think we can add his first season at QPR- not so much for goals but all round, he put in some assists too. Had a good partnership with Hugill.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think we can add his first season at QPR- not so much for goals but all round, he put in some assists too. Had a good partnership with Hugill.

 

You really want an out-and-out striker to get more than 7 league goals in a full season.

He isn't a terrible player, but I think as a scorer and provider of assists he's inferior to Weimann and the new-look Antoine Semenyo. Both of whom cost the club far less.

[Ivorguy]

Don’t think the club did enough homework on Wells before splashing the cash

[Wealwayseatcheese]

15 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

You really want an out-and-out striker to get more than 7 league goals in a full season.

He isn't a terrible player, but I think as a scorer and provider of assists he's inferior to Weimann and the new-look Antoine Semenyo. Both of whom cost the club far less.

At this moment in our season , give me Weimann and Semenyo everytime. 

[The Original OTIB]

4 minutes ago, Ivorguy said:

Don’t think the club did enough homework on Wells before splashing the cash

Stick it on the list with about 30 others in recent years.

[bcfc01]

18 minutes ago, Wealwayseatcheese said:

At this moment in our season , give me Weimann and Semenyo everytime. 

Would you have said this at the start of the season ? 

Just asking. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

5 hours ago, maxjak said:

What a shame he didn't bother to get vaccinated?  Not in least bit irresponsible...I'm sure his team mates are pleased?  

To be fair to him, whether he's vaccinated or not doesn't affect his chances of catching covid/testing positive. Being vaccinated just gives him the best chance of not becoming horribly ill/hospitalised/dead. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[Dullmoan Tone]

1 hour ago, Wealwayseatcheese said:

At this moment in our season , give me Weimann and Semenyo everytime. 

Surely him, Semenyo and Weimann could be a brilliant partnership - Martin battled but did little last night, thought his touch was poor - he held up nothing but momentum!

[Numero Uno]

23 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

Surely him, Semenyo and Weimann could be a brilliant partnership - Martin battled but did little last night, thought his touch was poor - he held up nothing but momentum!

Second goal?

[maxjak]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

To be fair to him, whether he's vaccinated or not doesn't affect his chances of catching covid/testing positive. Being vaccinated just gives him the best chance of not becoming horribly ill/hospitalised/dead. 

Your entitled to your opinion.........   But please explain what is the vaccination for, if it is not to prevent  individuals from becoming infected  and   lessening the likelihood of infecting others?

[Merrick's Marvels]

33 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Your entitled to your opinion.........   But please explain what is the vaccination for, if it is not to prevent  individuals from becoming infected  and   lessening the likelihood of infecting others?

Yeah, an opinion based on fact. Which makes it a worth while one, unlike most opinion found on the internet.

Try this: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/how-to-avoid-catching-and-spreading-coronavirus-covid-19/

What the hell do the NHS know, eh? Muppets. 

 

Here's the relevant bit:

 

How to avoid catching and spreading coronavirus (COVID-19)

While there are cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK, there is a risk you can catch it or pass it on. You could still catch or spread it even if you're fully vaccinated or have had the virus before.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[petehinton]

22 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

For being a waste of money. 

Nice 

[EmissionImpossible]

I think he’s a decent player but his lack of effort on occasion has been poor. Don’t think city have given him that much of a chance. 

[IAmNick]

26 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah, an opinion based on fact. Which makes it a worth while one, unlike most opinion found on the internet.

Try this: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/how-to-avoid-catching-and-spreading-coronavirus-covid-19/

What the hell do the NHS know, eh? Muppets. 

 

Here's the relevant bit:

 

How to avoid catching and spreading coronavirus (COVID-19)

While there are cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK, there is a risk you can catch it or pass it on. You could still catch or spread it even if you're fully vaccinated or have had the virus before.

You can catch it. Nobody said it made you immune to catching it, just that it reduces the chance.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/study-finds-gradual-increase-in-covid-infection-risk-after-second-vaccine-dose/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext

So therefor the more people who get vaccinated, the less people who catch it - or if you are vaccinated, you have less chance of catching it.

  

2 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

To be fair to him, whether he's vaccinated or not doesn't affect his chances of catching covid/testing positive. Being vaccinated just gives him the best chance of not becoming horribly ill/hospitalised/dead. 

So it provably does affect his chances of catching it.

Nothing is perfect of course. Some will be jabbed, catch it, and die. That's life.

I notice you missed this bit:

But what do the NHS know eh?

Edited February 10, 2022 by IAmNick

[chinapig]

11 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

You can catch it. Nobody said it made you immune to catching it, just that it reduces the chance.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/study-finds-gradual-increase-in-covid-infection-risk-after-second-vaccine-dose/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext

So therefor the more people who get vaccinated, the less people who catch it - or if you are vaccinated, you have less chance of catching it.

  

So it provably does affect his chances of catching it.

Nothing is perfect of course. Some will be jabbed, catch it, and die. That's life.

I notice you missed this bit:

But what do the NHS know eh?

I'm not sure @Merrick's Marvelswas implying there is no need to be vaccinated because you can still be infected but ,yes, the point some people miss is that vaccinations significantly mitigate risk they don't eliminate it and don't claim to.

Failure to understand this basic point can lead to bogus anti vax arguments.

[maxjak]

42 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yeah, an opinion based on fact. Which makes it a worth while one, unlike most opinion found on the internet.

Try this: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/how-to-avoid-catching-and-spreading-coronavirus-covid-19/

What the hell do the NHS know, eh? Muppets. 

 

Here's the relevant bit:

 

How to avoid catching and spreading coronavirus (COVID-19)

While there are cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK, there is a risk you can catch it or pass it on. You could still catch or spread it even if you're fully vaccinated or have had the virus before.

OPERATIVE WORD............COULD.   Sorry life is too short to trade dialogue or debate with someone who has not bothered to educate themselves?   Of course you  can still catch it, but as a responsible citizen it is extremely wise to vaccinate yourself, so as  to greatly reduce the chance of contracting it .  if nobody had bothered to become vaccinated, we would be back where we were  last summer, with the NHS unable to cope?         

[Red-Robbo]

Let's not forget Wells went a little beyond just not having a vaccine.  As people were dying throughout the world, he shared memes to his 41,000 Twitter followers falsely claiming the vaccines contain aborted foetus cells, will inevitably cause side effects and are being masterminded by Bill Gates for some sinister reason yet to be revealed.

He pushed dangerous nonsense. 

It would be ironic if it hits him really hard. I don't wish anyone harm, but some people don't help themselves. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

38 minutes ago, maxjak said:

OPERATIVE WORD............COULD.   Sorry life is too short to trade dialogue or debate with someone who has not bothered to educate themselves?   Of course you  can still catch it, but as a responsible citizen it is extremely wise to vaccinate yourself, so as  to greatly reduce the chance of contracting it .  if nobody had bothered to become vaccinated, we would be back where we were  last summer, with the NHS unable to cope?         

You appear to have completely misunderstood my point. 

To be clear, I am pro vaccination. Try reading my post again.

You seemed to be saying "if only he'd got vaccinated, he wouldn't have caught covid". My reply was "that's not necessarily true". Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

To be fair to him, whether he's vaccinated or not doesn't affect his chances of catching covid/testing positive. Being vaccinated just gives him the best chance of not becoming horribly ill/hospitalised/dead. 

Vaccination DOES affect his chances of catching covid. A booster dose would have meant he’s almost 40% less likely to catch it.
According to two recent studies reported here https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndrake/2022/02/01/vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-omicron-wave/?sh=346c2eba4ee6

[plumb]

37 minutes ago, maxjak said:

OPERATIVE WORD............COULD.   Sorry life is too short to trade dialogue or debate with someone who has not bothered to educate themselves?   Of course you  can still catch it, but as a responsible citizen it is extremely wise to vaccinate yourself, so as  to greatly reduce the chance of contracting it .  if nobody had bothered to become vaccinated, we would be back where we were  last summer, with the NHS unable to cope?         

Is the vaccine fantastic? yes.

Do I agree people should get vaccinated? yes.

'Greatly reduce the chances of contracting it' - do you genuinely believe that?  Do your experiences in the real world of people you know catching covid genuinely back up that claim?

The tens/hundreds of thousands catching covid each day, the majority who are vaccinated, does that really back up that claim?

I find it amazing that people almost dismiss what they are seeing with their own eyes and choose to believe what they feel they should.

They believe Joe Biden when he said if you have the vaccine you will not get covid, when that is simply not true.

The vaccine is fantastic at stopping people getting seriously ill, but stopping people getting covid and passing it on is much more up for debate.

Edited February 10, 2022 by bbew

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 minute ago, italian dave said:

Vaccination DOES affect his chances of catching covid. A booster dose would have meant he’s almost 40% less likely to catch it.
According to two recent studies reported here https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndrake/2022/02/01/vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-omicron-wave/?sh=346c2eba4ee6

Yes. My point was rather he can still get it and more importantly the vaccine makes it less likely he'd be seriously ill. Could have worded that more precisely. 

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, bbew said:

Is the vaccine fantastic - yes.

Do I agree people should get vaccinated - yes.

'Greatly reduce the chances of contracting it' - do you genuinely believe that?  Do your experiences in the real world of people you know catching covid genuinely back up that claim?

The tens/hundreds of thousands catching covid each day, the majority who are vaccinated, does that really back up that claim?

I find it amazing that people almost dismiss what they are seeing with their own eyes and choose to believe what they feel they should.

They believe Joe Biden when he said if you have the vaccine you will not get covid.

The vaccine is fantastic at stopping people getting seriously ill, but stopping people getting covid and passing it on is much more up for debate.

 

The vast majority of the UK is vaccinated, so of course the majority of cases will be from among that 90% of adults.  However, if you're in the 10% who aren't jabbed, you have a higher risk of catching it and a higher risk of getting ill if you do. 

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, bbew said:

Is the vaccine fantastic - yes.

Do I agree people should get vaccinated - yes.

'Greatly reduce the chances of contracting it' - do you genuinely believe that?  Do your experiences in the real world of people you know catching covid genuinely back up that claim?

The tens/hundreds of thousands catching covid each day, the majority who are vaccinated, does that really back that up claim?

I find it amazing that people almost dismiss what they are seeing with their own eyes and choose to believe what they feel they should.

The vaccine is fantastic at stopping people getting seriously ill, but stopping people getting covid and passing it on is much more up for debate.

Yes some of us do believe it.

Of course it’s impossible to prove that any single individual hasn’t got covid because they’ve been vaccinated and would have done otherwise. It’s like trying to prove any negative.

But I find it equally amazing that people can’t see the possibility (evidenced by studies) that 100,000 vaccinated people catching covid somehow precludes the possibility that 140,000 people would have caught it without vaccinations. 

[chinapig]

Just now, Red-Robbo said:

 

The vast majority of the UK is vaccinated, so of course the majority of cases will be from among that 90% of adults.  However, if you're in the 10% who aren't jabbed, you have a higher risk of catching it and a higher risk of getting ill if you do. 

Another basic point some people still don't get. Like saying the majority of people killed in road accidents were wearing seat belts therefore seat belts don't work.

[plumb]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

The vast majority of the UK is vaccinated, so of course the majority of cases will be from among that 90% of adults.  However, if you're in the 10% who aren't jabbed, you have a higher risk of catching it and a higher risk of getting ill if you do. 

A higher risk - yes completely agree.

A greatly higher risk - not so sure.

18 million people in the UK have had covid, a significant proportion after being vaccinated. I'm not so sure you can say it greatly reduces your risk greatly.

[plumb]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Yes some of us do believe it.

Of course it’s impossible to prove that any single individual hasn’t got covid because they’ve been vaccinated and would have done otherwise. It’s like trying to prove any negative.

But I find it equally amazing that people can’t see the possibility (evidenced by studies) that 100,000 vaccinated people catching covid somehow precludes the possibility that 140,000 people would have caught it without vaccinations. 

But Israel, Ireland and Gibraltar have very, very high vaccination rates, and had some if the highest cases numbers in the world.

[chinapig]

8 minutes ago, bbew said:

Is the vaccine fantastic - yes.

Do I agree people should get vaccinated - yes.

'Greatly reduce the chances of contracting it' - do you genuinely believe that?  Do your experiences in the real world of people you know catching covid genuinely back up that claim?

The tens/hundreds of thousands catching covid each day, the majority who are vaccinated, does that really back up that claim?

I find it amazing that people almost dismiss what they are seeing with their own eyes and choose to believe what they feel they should.

They believe Joe Biden when he said if you have the vaccine you will not get covid, when that is simply not true.

The vaccine is fantastic at stopping people getting seriously ill, but stopping people getting covid and passing it on is much more up for debate.

Anecdotes are no substitute for systematic evidence. Knowing people who smoked all their lives and lived to a ripe old age doesn't mean that smoking doesn't kill for instance.

Bear in mind also that omicron is more infectious but less severe than delta.

Plus once you start removing mitigations like masks and social distancing a spike in infections is exactly what you would expect.

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, bbew said:

A higher risk - yes completely agree.

A greatly higher risk - not so sure.

18 million people in the UK have had covid, a significant proportion after being vaccinated. I'm not so sure you can say it greatly reduces your risk greatly.

 40% higher research suggests and who are any of us to doubt that.

IF Pearson has a downer on Wells over the Covid thing however, I imagine it's more down to the conspiracy crap he posted than just him catching it.

However, I suggest a much bigger factor would be his work and scoring rate. 

The irony is, having scored at Blackpool, he may have been in contention for a start yesterday had he not tested positive. 

[italian dave]

8 minutes ago, bbew said:

A higher risk - yes completely agree.

A greatly higher risk - not so sure.

18 million people in the UK have had covid, a significant proportion after being vaccinated. I'm not so sure you can say it greatly reduces your risk greatly.

 

5 minutes ago, bbew said:

But Israel, Ireland and Gibraltar have very, very high vaccination rates, and had some if the highest cases numbers in the world.

I didn’t think Ireland was particularly high? Israel and Gibraltar, agree, although I don’t know enough about the many other factors that affect both actual transmission and recorded numbers (restrictions on social contact, testing etc).

But the transmission rate of covid means that over two years, without any public health measures in place (lockdowns etc), pretty much the whole population would have caught it. Even allowing for a generous 1/3rd who are asymptomatic and untested, that means 50m potential cases, which suddenly makes 18m seem not quite such a large number?

I think in truth we’re probably all arguing over semantics. We agree vaccination reduces the risk, it’s just about how you define ‘greatly’. 

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Ivorguy said:

Don’t think the club did enough homework on Wells before splashing the cash

I thought Wells was a decent striker from his Bradford days….one whose career previously had always been one step ahead of us, e.g. he was always a bit better than our level at the time and therefore had better suitors.

The time we bought him, was purely down to sweetening the Brownhill deal.  Brownhill has a £7m release clause in summer 2020, Burnley will offer us £7m plus add-ons now.  We then say, got any players to make it sweeter?

We get Wells.  Can only guess Vydra was too dear / still part of their plans / had no interest in coming here.

We’d have been better taking the £7m plus add-ons and bringing in a different striker….there were hundreds of potential players, but we allowed ourselves to narrow it to one club.  Surely we had a list of suitable targets from a bigger pond?

Where have I seen that concept of looking in a smaller pond before?

Ah, yes, global search, you’d be surprised who we are speaking too….yes we were surprised - Dean Holden.

[IAmNick]

Just now, Tafkarmlf said:

There was some 'conspiracy style' stuff on Facebook last night that whilst, Nahki does have Covid, that Wells and NP had an altercation and that NP was having  max fac/ rhinoplasty as a result. 

I mean, there's far fetched, but that's way, way out there and far better than 'The Alien' s' take which was just as batshit. 

Rumour mill in overdrive i suspect. 

If Pearson and Wells came to blows I know who my money would be on for needing the rhinoplasty afterwards...!

[plumb]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Another basic point some people still don't get. Like saying the majority of people killed in road accidents were wearing seat belts therefore seat belts don't work.

But if millions of people were dieing in road accidents you would probably come to the conclusion they are not working.  In the same way the fact that millions of vannicated people are still catching covid in the UK, you would maybe question how good the vaccine is at stopping transmission.

Thankfully the vaccine is undoubtedly amazing at massively reducing serious illness.

The world health organisation said they expected 50% of Europe to catch covid.  Does that really indicate the vaccine 'greatly reduces transmission'.

It seems some people and the press always want to have someone to blame, be it on race, religion,immigration and now vaccinated status. There always seems an agenda to divide. Let's all just get along, life is precious, people will disagree, that's life,just respect others opinions and concerns. Making the jab pretty much mandatory, especially for children, and all the division it has caused just doesn't seem right to me.

Edited February 10, 2022 by bbew

[IAmNick]

9 minutes ago, bbew said:

But if millions of people were dieing in road accidents you would probably come to the conclusion they are not working.  In the same way the fact that millions of vannicated people are still catching covid in the UK, you would maybe question how good the vaccine is at stopping transmission.

Thankfully the vaccine is undoubtedly amazing at massively reducing serious illness.

The world health organisation said they expected 50% of Europe to catch covid.  Does that really indicate the vaccine 'greatly reduces transmission'.

Over 100,000 people are injured on the roads here each year - but we still all wear our seatbelts because we know it reduces our chance. There are just so many accidents that some people will still get injured, or die. That's how it works.

I don't think this is really logical. If covid is everywhere then people will be exposed so much they will still catch it at a high rate, even with the vaccine(s). What reason do you have for not believing the studies which show they do effectively reduce transmission?

[pillred]

24 minutes ago, bbew said:

But if millions of people were dieing in road accidents you would probably come to the conclusion they are not working.  In the same way the fact that millions of vannicated people are still catching covid in the UK, you would maybe question how good the vaccine is at stopping transmission.

Thankfully the vaccine is undoubtedly amazing at massively reducing serious illness.

The world health organisation said they expected 50% of Europe to catch covid.  Does that really indicate the vaccine 'greatly reduces transmission'.

It seems some people and the press always want to have someone to blame, be it on race, religion,immigration and now vaccinated status. There always seems an agenda to divide. Let's all just get along, life is precious, people will disagree, that's life,just respect others opinions and concerns. Making the jab pretty much mandatory, especially for children, and all the division it has caused just doesn't seem right to me.

I would be surprised if of the 50% that caught covid a higher proportion of them would be unvaccinated, surely any reduction in the likelihood of transmission or infection plus the known benefit of avoiding the worst of the symptoms would be reason enough to get vaccinated. 

[plumb]

33 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Over 100,000 people are injured on the roads here each year - but we still all wear our seatbelts because we know it reduces our chance. There are just so many accidents that some people will still get injured, or die. That's how it works.

I don't think this is really logical. If covid is everywhere then people will be exposed so much they will still catch it at a high rate, even with the vaccine(s). What reason do you have for not believing the studies which show they do effectively reduce transmission?

The fact there are equal studies that show they don't make much difference. Throughout the whole pandemic it has been 'follow the science' but which science? For every scientist who says one thing, there is another scientist who will give a different opinion.  Some may get more press time but does that make them more worthy.

Remember we were told the science said masks make little difference and didn't need to wear then, then we told to wear them  despite no new science.

We were told the vaccine will stop you getting covid (by Biden and CDC), now we now that is not true.

We were told lockdowns will save hundreds of thousands of lives, now studies show they reduced the death rate by just 0.2%.

One study shows vaccination immunity is best, another that immunity after infection is best.

We are given models that there could be 6,000 deaths a day without another lockdown, then (thankfully) they are completely wrong.

Really none of us know.  People seem to pick their opinion and get evidence to suit.  I just feel labeling people 'anti vax' is just the latest way to divide people, especially when the majority of the 'anti vaxers' are not nutty loons but just genuine people with concerns of taking a drug with no medium or long term safety data (which I know is impossible to produce so doesn't mean it is not safe).  They need encouragement to get vaccinated, not punishment and condemnation.

Edited February 11, 2022 by bbew

[MarcusX]

12 minutes ago, bbew said:

The fact there are equal studies that show they don't make much difference. Throughout the whole pandemic it has been 'follow the science' but which science? For every scientist who says one thing, there is another scientist who will give a different opinion.  Some may get more press time but does that make them more worthy.

Remember we were told masks make little difference, then 'the science' changed and we were told to wear them.

We were told the vaccine will stop you getting covid (by Biden and CDC), now we now that is not true.

We were told lockdowns will save hundreds of thousands of lifes, now studies show they reduced the death rate by just 0.2%.

One study shows vaccination immunity is best, another the immunity after infection is best.

Really none of us know.  I just feel labeling people 'ant vax' is just the latest iway to divide people.

Are you suggesting science doesn’t change?

They initially thought covid might be passed by touch, that’s why we washed our hands 100x a day, covered them in sanitised and washed everything that came into our homes. Science and understanding changes.

Also two “scientists” opinions don’t necessarily hold the same weight, especially if one side of the argument has hundreds of scientists and the other only have a few - who may have ulterior motives

[Norn Iron]

11 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Curtis Fleming has confirmed that ‘Nahki Wells' surprise absence in the squad was due to a positive Covid-19 test earlier in the week with the striker set to return on Friday.’

Having been tested positive myself for Covid the day after the Preston game, I find this Curtis quote strange. 

I have just checked and Northern Ireland rules are the same as England's. 

Even if he takes a Lateral Flow Test on Saturday night and he's positive, then that is Day Zero. The earliest he can be out of isolation is Day 6 assuming that this day (Friday) and Day 5 (Thursday) produce negative LFTs. This is assuming he had vaccinations. If he didn't, then he has to go 10 days isolation as per the rules.

So Nahki must have done a test before playing and was negative but does a test afterwards and is positive? Our medical team obviously have protocols they must adhere by but Nahki can't train etc until Tuesday 15th at the earliest.....unless he has been vaccinated all the time.

 

[plumb]

2 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Are you suggesting science doesn’t change?

They initially thought covid might be passed by touch, that’s why we washed our hands 100x a day, covered them in sanitised and washed everything that came into our homes. Science and understanding changes.

Also two “scientists” opinions don’t necessarily hold the same weight, especially if one side of the argument has hundreds of scientists and the other only have a few - who may have ulterior motives

I'm saying don't vilify people who may have a different view, as when the science changes their view might have been right.

Slightly off topic but people were sensored for saying covid may have started in a lab. They were accused of fake news, spreading conspiracy theories.  Now the mainstream view is that is a likely cause of where covid originated.  

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Another basic point some people still don't get. Like saying the majority of people killed in road accidents were wearing seat belts therefore seat belts don't work.

I understand approximately 15% of UK motor accidents in 2020 were caused by 'drunk' driving.

By extension, the remaining 85% were caused by drivers who were sober.

It follows, therefore, that the old adage of 'one for the road' is quite sound.... 

[Never to the dark side]

A joke that Dave Allen the comedian(ask your parents,sorry,ask your grand parents)

cracked a long time ago

[Wealwayseatcheese]

13 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Would you have said this at the start of the season ? 

Just asking. 

Most definitely. I have always said that there is a great talent in Semenyo but it’s taken longer to break though than anticipated. Weimann does what it says on the tin. Hardworking and scores goals. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Wealwayseatcheese

[italian dave]

8 hours ago, bbew said:

The fact there are equal studies that show they don't make much difference. Throughout the whole pandemic it has been 'follow the science' but which science? For every scientist who says one thing, there is another scientist who will give a different opinion.  Some may get more press time but does that make them more worthy.

You’re moving the goalposts a bit using road deaths. To date the discussion has been about catching it, not dying from it. There’s fairly sound evidence that boosters reduce deaths by 90+%. Do you doubt that? 
If you want to use a road analogy, we have measures to prevent accidents happening in the first place - driving on the left for instance. The fact that accidents still happen doesn’t mean that those measures have prevented other accidents.

Remember we were told the science said masks make little difference and didn't need to wear then, then we told to wear them  despite no new science.

The principal reason makes use wasn’t encouraged early on was not medical, it was political. There weren’t enough masks. Also, cloth masks are next to useless. Always have been. Still are. Surgical and ffp2 masks ARE effective; why would surgeons, health staff etc wear routinely - not just covid related - if not?

We were told the vaccine will stop you getting covid (by Biden and CDC), now we now that is not true.

Im not aware of any suggestion by Biden, CDC, or their equivalents elsewhere that vaccines would stop you getting covid. They have said that there’s a good chance they will, that they will make it less likely etc etc, but no-one has ever claimed that 100% they will stop you getting it.

We were told lockdowns will save hundreds of thousands of lives, now studies show they reduced the death rate by just 0.2%.

That study, by three economists, has been widely criticised by a fair number of medical experts. 

One study shows vaccination immunity is best, another that immunity after infection is best.

But what they also show consistently is that achieving that immunity without dying or getting seriously ill first is more likely via vaccination than by catching it. 

We are given models that there could be 6,000 deaths a day without another lockdown, then (thankfully) they are completely wrong.

They are models. That’s the point of them. They model different scenarios. Different types of lockdown. Other measures alongside that. One modelled the removal of all restrictions, but that never happened. So there’s no way of saying that it was ‘wrong’. 

Really none of us know. 

Agree. And neither do scientists. Medical science isn’t an exact science, least of all with a previously unknown virus. So yes things change. But that’s not a reason for making the best judgements we can based on the best evidence at the time.

People seem to pick their opinion and get evidence to suit.  I just feel labeling people 'anti vax' is just the latest way to divide people, especially when the majority of the 'anti vaxers' are not nutty loons but just genuine people with concerns of taking a drug with no medium or long term safety data (which I know is impossible to produce so doesn't mean it is not safe).  They need encouragement to get vaccinated, not punishment and condemnation.

Im not sure about compulsory vaccination, but those who choose not to get vaccination need to realise that there are consequences to that decision. That’s not about ‘punishment’, but just about taking responsibility for the decision they’ve made and the impact that has in society. 

Comments above. 

Great point by @Norn Iron above though…..loooks like NW may have been vaccinated after all and we’ve got into this debate on entirely the wrong assumption!!

Edited February 11, 2022 by italian dave

[red panda]

8 hours ago, bbew said:

The fact there are equal studies that show they don't make much difference. Throughout the whole pandemic it has been 'follow the science' but which science? For every scientist who says one thing, there is another scientist who will give a different opinion.  Some may get more press time but does that make them more worthy.

Remember we were told the science said masks make little difference and didn't need to wear then, then we told to wear them  despite no new science.

We were told the vaccine will stop you getting covid (by Biden and CDC), now we now that is not true.

We were told lockdowns will save hundreds of thousands of lives, now studies show they reduced the death rate by just 0.2%.

One study shows vaccination immunity is best, another that immunity after infection is best.

We are given models that there could be 6,000 deaths a day without another lockdown, then (thankfully) they are completely wrong.

Really none of us know.  People seem to pick their opinion and get evidence to suit.  I just feel labeling people 'anti vax' is just the latest way to divide people, especially when the majority of the 'anti vaxers' are not nutty loons but just genuine people with concerns of taking a drug with no medium or long term safety data (which I know is impossible to produce so doesn't mean it is not safe).  They need encouragement to get vaccinated, not punishment and condemnation.

This is how science works.  There's a lot of randomness involved, so some studies are always going to deliver misleading results because of this (e.g. the people selected at random to receive a particular drug in one study might just happen to be healthier on average than those who get another drug or a placebo).  So we always need to be careful giving too much weight to just "one study" (especially if it's being reported in the Daily Mail or on social media).  Scientists address this by aggregating the results of as many studies as possible.  Naysayers will often be able to find "one study" that gives a different result, but that doesn't mean the consensus established by the overall body of evidence is wrong.

[maxjak]

22 hours ago, bbew said:

Is the vaccine fantastic? yes.

Do I agree people should get vaccinated? yes.

'Greatly reduce the chances of contracting it' - do you genuinely believe that?  Do your experiences in the real world of people you know catching covid genuinely back up that claim?

The tens/hundreds of thousands catching covid each day, the majority who are vaccinated, does that really back up that claim?

I find it amazing that people almost dismiss what they are seeing with their own eyes and choose to believe what they feel they should.

They believe Joe Biden when he said if you have the vaccine you will not get covid, when that is simply not true.

The vaccine is fantastic at stopping people getting seriously ill, but stopping people getting covid and passing it on is much more up for debate.

Your pedantic observations are pointless, the whole agenda of producing a vaccine was to save peoples lives, and reduce the massive strain on the NHS? Which it has achieved, everything else is superfluous.

[maxjak]

22 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

You appear to have completely misunderstood my point. 

To be clear, I am pro vaccination. Try reading my post again.

You seemed to be saying "if only he'd got vaccinated, he wouldn't have caught covid". My reply was "that's not necessarily true". Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. 

Fair enough.....my bad.  Sorry for misunderstanding

[MarcusX]

17 hours ago, italian dave said:

Comments above. 

Great point by @Norn Iron above though…..loooks like NW may have been vaccinated after all and we’ve got into this debate on entirely the wrong assumption!!

Pretty sure the rules changed on the 17th Jan, it’s 5 days for everyone regardless of vaccination status (assuming two negative tests)

[italian dave]

6 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Pretty sure the rules changed on the 17th Jan, it’s 5 days for everyone regardless of vaccination status (assuming two negative tests)

Ah, OK, apologies,  didn’t realise that. It’s hard enough keeping track of the rules that do apply to you, never mind the ones that don’t!