Off Topic Thread 5.0

sydthebeat

thomond2006 wrote: »

I have to laugh at the media posting the picture of the banner from last night's Premier League match and calling it a total disgrace or similar.

I would say it's a disgrace to exploit the picture for retweets and clicks. Now the picture is out there and will be spread around.

By you not linking to the story in your post, or making any reference to what the banner said...... I had to goggle to find the story and see the banner.

Does that make you complicit in the spread of the picture??

Thomond the gonzo journalist

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

I have to laugh at the media posting the picture of the banner from last night's Premier League match and calling it a total disgrace or similar.

I would say it's a disgrace to exploit the picture for retweets and clicks. Now the picture is out there and will be spread around.

I take real issue with major organisations using the BLM situation as an opportunity. They're deperate to appear on the right side of history. Some of these sports have been exceptionally exploitative and, in some instances, actively worked with racist regimes. This applies very much to rugby union which has faced huge issues with racism historically including our own union happily sending a squad to SA during apartheid despite widespread protests.

The likes of the Premier League and NFL seem more concerned with the PR element and making statements/gestures rather than action. If they want to get serious about it, they'd actively engage those employed by the league to stamp out racism and make a genuine effort to remove racist elements from the stands.

Roger Goodell coming out and saying teams should consider signing Colin Kaepernick was incredible hypocrisy. The bloke completely undermined Kaepernick at the time of his protest and contributed significantly to ending his career.

thomond2006

sydthebeat wrote: »

By you not linking to the story in your post, or making any reference to what the banner said...... I had to goggle to find the story and see the banner.

Does that make you complicit in the spread of the picture??

Thomond the gonzo journalist

I never told you to Google anything.

My problem is using a cheap gesture of outrage for clicks. It's so transparent and embarassing.

Former Former

thomond2006 wrote: »

I agree it's big news and I'm not suggesting to not report on it. My problem is with media exploiting the image for clicks. Talksport for example tweeted the image calling it a total disgrace. It's all for retweets. You can report it without giving these clowns the attention they crave.

Even the BBC have the image on an article on their website. Ridiculous.

If they weren't reporting it, people would be going nuts that the media is covering it up to preserve the cosy status quo.

The only media worth having is one that reports ALL the news. When you have outlets deciding what they should or should not report on, it's incredibly dangerous. That's when you end up in a Fox News situation.

sydthebeat

thomond2006 wrote: »

I never told you to Google anything.

Of course you didn't. But you assumed people would know what you were on about.

you did make some vague references to a banner and a premier league connection, so to know what you were taking about required a Google search

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

If they weren't reporting it, people would be going nuts that the media is covering it up to preserve the cosy status quo.

The only media worth having is one that reports ALL the news. When you have outlets deciding what they should or should not report on, it's incredibly dangerous. That's when you end up in a Fox News situation.

FF I'm saying to not spread the image around. Report away on what happened but don't make these clowns' work famous. It just promotes outrage clicks.

Buer

So should we just post it on here as Thomond suggests or what?

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

So should we just post it on here as Thomond suggests or what?

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

So should we just post it on here as Thomond suggests or what?

That's exactly what he wants. Don't fall for it.

I can see the rationale in reporting on the fact that the incident happened, without putting the picture of the plane and banner out there but the reality is that there will be pics flying around social media and anyone who reads the story and doesn't see the picture will probably have seen it anyway. I've already seen it on one of the discord channels I'm on before I knew what the story was about.

DGRulz

I think what thomond is trying to say, is that they can report on it without showing the banner etc? SImiliar to the idea that when a mass shooting occurs the shooters face shouldn't be plastered on every news bulletin and front page, which I'd agree with.

thomond2006

Former Former wrote: »

That's exactly what he wants. Don't fall for it.

haha you're giving me too much credit FF.

prawnsambo

The company who's plane it was have shut down their facebook page. By all accounts they have history with these kinds of stunts.

So with new daily cases still around the thousand mark, limited track and trace infrastructure and an inadequate testing volume the UK will fully abandon lockdown in 11 days.

Is there something I am missing? I know the virus appears marginally less deadly as the treatment schedule improves for severe cases but has anywhere else done what the UK are doing and not seen a spike in cases?

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

So with new daily cases still around the thousand mark, limited track and trace infrastructure and an inadequate testing volume the UK will fully abandon lockdown in 11 days.

Is there something I am missing? I know the virus appears marginally less deadly as the treatment schedule improves for severe cases but has anywhere else done what the UK are doing and not seen a spike in cases?

the whole idea behind a lockdown is so that the health service does not become over run, and people who would have a good chance of surviving do not, because of lack of service and equipment.

The uk suggest their R0 figure is approx 0.7 currently and community transmission is quite low

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8443059/Britain-announces-new-low-128-Covid-19-deaths.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/what-r-value-means-coronavirus-lockdown-uk-rising/

not saying they area correct..... but it will be a good indicator to us as to how the halving of the 2m rule will work, should we introduce it here.

realistically though a 1m social distance is nothing more than leaving one little baby step backs towards normality

OldRio

sydthebeat wrote: »

the whole idea behind a lockdown is so that the health service does not become over run, and people who would have a good chance of surviving do not, because of lack of service and equipment.

The uk suggest their R0 figure is approx 0.7 currently and community transmission is quite low

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8443059/Britain-announces-new-low-128-Covid-19-deaths.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/what-r-value-means-coronavirus-lockdown-uk-rising/

not saying they area correct..... but it will be a good indicator to us as to how the halving of the 2m rule will work, should we introduce it here.

realistically though a 1m social distance is nothing more than leaving one little baby step backs towards normality

The Daily Mail and the Tory graph?
Seriously?

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

the whole idea behind a lockdown is so that the health service does not become over run, and people who would have a good chance of surviving do not, because of lack of service and equipment.

The uk suggest their R0 figure is approx 0.7 currently and community transmission is quite low

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8443059/Britain-announces-new-low-128-Covid-19-deaths.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/what-r-value-means-coronavirus-lockdown-uk-rising/

not saying they area correct..... but it will be a good indicator to us as to how the halving of the 2m rule will work, should we introduce it here.

realistically though a 1m social distance is nothing more than leaving one little baby step backs towards normality

I understand that the lockdown is a mechanism to regain control of the virus, learn how to manage it and adapt society to live with it. I feel that has been largely achieved here in Ireland.

I just don't see anything like the same suppression in the UK, yet they are easing restrictions sooner than we are.

Are we being over cautious? Are our medical advisers misinformed?

I guess I'm just looking at the one country which went against international best practice and has been severely punished as a result once again appearing to go against international best practice.

The question I'm ultimately getting to is how much travel do we allow between England and Ireland if they still aren't taking this seriously?

Bridge93

3 Pakistan cricketers test positive for covid putting their tour to England in doubt
Conor McKenna breaks AFL guidelines and tests positive jeopardising the AFL season
Novak Djokovic tests positive after playing in a tennis tournament with crowds in attendance.

Can’t keep it out of sport sadly no matter how low cases seem. Opening up will always bring a rise. Djokovic in particular may see any chance of crowds coming back put on the backburner

kuang1

Bridge93 wrote: »

Djokovic in particular may see any chance of crowds coming back put on the backburner

Wasn't he in a nightclub in Slovenia (possibly wrong country) prior to getting the virus?
Heard snippets of that story on OTB the other night so not certain but I think that's what I heard.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Are we being over cautious? Are our medical advisers misinformed?

I guess I'm just looking at the one country which went against international best practice and has been severely punished as a result once again appearing to go against international best practice.

To be fair, I think we are the outlier here. We're WAY behind France, Spain, and Germany.

I think we might end up being the ones in the right.

Bridge93

kuang1 wrote: »

Wasn't he in a nightclub in Slovenia (possibly wrong country) prior to getting the virus?
Heard snippets of that story on OTB the other night so not certain but I think that's what I heard.

Not fully sure where he’s been. This tour seems to be crisscrossing Southern Europe. But Viktor Troicki who was also playing on tour has tested positive. Djokovic could find himself in hot water over this although I don’t know what guidelines Serbia or Croatia etc are giving out

Edit: seems he was at a party where half the red star Belgrade football team caught it too.

sydthebeat

OldRio wrote: »

The Daily Mail and the Tory graph?
Seriously?

im referencing the message, not the messenger.

have you any reason to suggest what they are reporting on is untrue or incorrect?

Deleted User wrote:

I understand that the lockdown is a mechanism to regain control of the virus, learn how to manage it and adapt society to live with it. I feel that has been largely achieved here in Ireland

no it wasnt.

The whole reason behind the lockdown was to protect the health services from being over run, and thus the ability to offer health services to those who needed it, and essentially save lives.... "flatten the curve"

https://www.thejournal.ie/what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-5047757-Mar2020/

so when countries feel they are in a position to provide health services to those who contact the virus, they are no longer in need of stringent lockdown measures. the Uk are, rightly or wrongly, at that point.

id still prefer to be living here than there though

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I understand that the lockdown is a mechanism to regain control of the virus, learn how to manage it and adapt society to live with it. I feel that has been largely achieved here in Ireland.

I just don't see anything like the same suppression in the UK, yet they are easing restrictions sooner than we are.

Are we being over cautious? Are our medical advisers misinformed?

I guess I'm just looking at the one country which went against international best practice and has been severely punished as a result once again appearing to go against international best practice.

The question I'm ultimately getting to is how much travel do we allow between England and Ireland if they still aren't taking this seriously?

I wouldn't say we're being overly precautious, but we're definitely sticking to guidelines and our original plan with more adherence than other places.

The UK are looking at it more from an economic standpoint at this stage I think. With other factors like Brexit lingering there's a strong chance that their economy could tank quite significantly with no real sight of recovery.

The travel question is definitely valid though, not even just for the UK but the likes of the US where we'd get significant visitors from and a lot of states have fairly aggressive re-opening plans despite high cases and reduced testing.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

no it wasnt.

I mean - I think we're saying the same thing?

I may not be using the same terminology but when I said "regain control of the virus" what I'm talking about is creating a situation where we can manage it, flatten the curve and ensure services are sufficient, as in - we're in control.

sydthebeat wrote: »

The whole reason behind the lockdown was to protect the health services from being over run, and thus the ability to offer health services to those who needed it, and essentially save lives.... "flatten the curve"

https://www.thejournal.ie/what-does-flattening-the-curve-mean-5047757-Mar2020/

so when countries feel they are in a position to provide health services to those who contact the virus, they are no longer in need of stringent lockdown measures. the Uk are, rightly or wrongly, at that point.

id still prefer to be living here than there though

Being able to provide health coverage is one thing but surely limiting the spread and subsequent death count is also highly desirable no?

Neil3030

How can a lockdown assist the healthcare system, if it doesn't slow down the spread?

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

How can a lockdown assist the healthcare system, if it doesn't slow down the spread?

That's exactly what it does, it's just that there are other ways which cumulatively can achieve the same in certain circumstances. We are just about at the point where those circumstances exist and we can get back to a more normal way of living.

It's just that other countries don't have that social infrastructure in place nor a level of suppression of existing cases.

Covid started in December / January. England is currently where it was in March and are basically giving up. I don't get it.

Neil3030

Because populist regimes are driven by knee-jerk responses rather than long term planning.

OldRio

sydthebeat wrote: »

im referencing the message, not the messenger.

have you any reason to suggest what they are reporting on is untrue or incorrect?


gh

Sorry but I won't be clicking on a link to them. They are nothing but mouthpieces for the current nt government.
As for your question? I refer you to my previous sentence.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean - I think we're saying the same thing?

I may not be using the same terminology but when I said "regain control of the virus" what I'm talking about is creating a situation where we can manage it, flatten the curve and ensure services are sufficient, as in - we're in control.

Being able to provide health coverage is one thing but surely limiting the spread and subsequent death count is also highly desirable no?

while we are referring to the same thing, your initial question was as to WHY the UK were abandoning the lockdown. (which isnt technically correct, they are just moving to a new phase, similar to what we will be doing later that month.)

absolutely limiting the spread is desirable, because the virus has such a high mortality rate, especially in older people.

However that death rate significantly trickles down in age groups when the health service is over run, as we saw in china and especially in italy. doctors had to make decisions as to who to let die, because they didn't have the equipment or personnel to deal with the huge caseload. Also, the staff themselves became at high risk of catching the virus, thus depleting the service even further.

The singular most pertinent reason for the lockdown, in every country, was to ensure the health services did not get over run, and therefore people who were much less likely to die if they contracted the virus would be saved.

we did that to great effect here.

getting more time to study and explore the virus was obviously a very valuable byproduct of the lockdown... but never was "learning to live with the virus"ever a reason for the lockdown initially. It was there to save lives, pure and simple.

The UK have decided that they have sufficient control on it (essentially R0 being less than 1) that they are no longer willing to take the economic hit that the lockdown has caused and are opening up at a pretty fast rate. will there be a spike in community cases?? i think you can be guaranteed there will be. however are they happy that their health service would be able to cope with a spike in cases... well, they can cope until they cannot.

The common cold is a virus with a high reproductive rate and no vaccine, but we dont lockdown every winter when it hits... why??
because our health services dont get overrun by it and its mortality rate is practically zero.

sydthebeat

OldRio wrote: »

Sorry but I won't be clicking on a link to them. They are nothing but mouthpieces for the current nt government.
As for your question? I refer you to my previous sentence.

thats fine, i just presented the articles as to where i was getting the figures from, and that i wasnt doing a seanie on it.

im sure if they were false that would be easily verified.