Matthew Le God

1) The range that article gives is a number if some restrictions are in place. You appear to be advocating no restrictions. In which case the article is suggesting the numbers would be above those estimates. 2) My question was rhetorical. A number doesn't need to be stated. I was merely saying it is worth taking efforts to reduce deaths. You appear to have a blasé attitude towards deaths of ten of thousands of fellow citizens in your country.

What am I wrong about in that post? https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/ignore/

It is generally working very well in the game, Saints have been on top apart from two fuck ups. Which is of course all that matters. Do you agree now a press requires the centre backs not to be deep?

If they were deep the press wouldn't work at all. A press requires compactness.

The starting point is you first defining exactly what you mean by 'accept'. The question can't be answered otherwise.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59621029 "The number of deaths from the variant by the end of April could range from 25,000 to 75,000 depending on how well vaccines perform ." Is it not worth trying to reduce such numbers of people dying over the next few months? @Noodles34 plane crashes are not contagious! Plus in any case huge amounts of preventative things are used to reduce numbers of plane crashes.

The replacement for Romeu is more likely to be Diallo, rather than Elyounoussi.

Nope, it isn't. "Not a pot to piss in" is used to indicate no money, however millions are going into stadium upgrades and Staplewood. I'm not saying it is a huge pot, but there is clearly some money available for significant projects.

That is not relevant to a counter about you claiming Saints "don't have a pot to piss in". Yet again, you don't understand how a rebuttal works.

Is the expansion of Staplewood they submitted 2 months ago not vision and money? Or the millions they have been spending on improving many aspects of the stadium recently?

No complaint can be taken seriously. They will all be fully aware of the proximity of the stadium when they sign any contract.

2 seasons ago. You don't go from 3rd choice at the European Champions to bottom half League One level in a year, clearly Saints feel the same.

He was training at Wimbledon to keep fit should a top flight team need to sign him. Wimbledon would not be able to get remotely close to his wage demands. He'll earn more in a month at Saints than he would for a season at Wimbledon. Had he signed for Wimbledon this season he'd be forfeiting the chance to play for Saints or another side capable of giving a big wage short term deal. Even at 40 years old, his quality level is significantly above a bottom half League One team.

Top stuff from Echo again.. "Controversial proposals to demolish the two Victorian gas holders, built in 1930 and 1935"" Queen Victoria died in 1901

I guess DT got it from this...

How is it 'ironic'? 🤔

No, these are all older than 40 year old Caballero... John Burridge (43y, 162d) Alec Chamberlain (42y, 327d) Steve Ogrizovic (42y, 237d) Brad Friedel (42y, 176d) Mark Schwarzer (42y, 159d) Neville Southall (41y, 178d) Kevin Poole (41y, 164d) Jens Lehmann (41y, 151d)

It does very much counter it! You said... "The vaccines help prevent serious illness, they do not stop you catching or spreading covid." A reduction in transmission is a counter, and that is what the study/article shows.

What are you being prevented from doing due to not using a vaccine passport? A negative test circumvents the need for a vaccine passport. What possible reason is there for you not to take a test? Do you really not give a shit about the society you live in?

You clearly haven't read or understood that article. The study shows vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be causes of transmission, not more likely. On what scientific peer reviewed evidence is your claim based?

That is a bizarre and fundamentally flawed line you are going with there. It helping doesn't mean it completely solves the issue to the extent where nothing else is needed. A 38% to 49% decrease in transmission after only one dose clearly makes it worthwhile getting to benefit to both yourself and the society you live in.

Public Health England say differently... "A single dose of a coronavirus vaccine can reduce household transmission of the virus by up to half, a study shows. Those given a first dose of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines - and who became infected three weeks later - were between 38% and 49% less likely to pass the virus on than unvaccinated people, PHE found." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56904993.amp

Isn't it funny how you are incapable of finding a quote which matches the claim?

Nothing I have said on this thread matches what you claim it says. You have comprehension problems!