hypochondriac

Again, that ignores the risks for those people who are unable to have a vaccine. I don't want censorship but what I do want is wider awareness that if enough people refuse the vaccine it will undoubtedly cost lives.

But that's an absurd standard. How on earth will you police everyone on the Internet to such a degree that you can say with confidence that every person will not ever be influenced by misinformation? It's like tackling coronavirus by welding everyone in individual rooms.

It's not about them trying, there are demands that they are held legally responsible for everything written on the platform. That means there's no room for nuance at all and things will be mass blocked.

What if there are links to an article or a video? Does that need to be fact checked and validated before it's removed?

Who decides if it's true? Who decides if it's based on bs? Bearing in mind this all has to be done in real time to stop any spread.

Haven't there been news stories like that for literally decades that predate the Internet?

Who decides what's worthy of a ban and what's allowed to stay up? Is any criticism of a vaccine or vaccine process no matter how mild worthy of a ban?

From what I've read, how many people are offered the vaccine is going to depend on how much immunity it gives you. If its a one and done type deal then that's going to be different from if you need regular top ups.

Think the problem though is that if enough people have that mindset then it's going to cause real problems for cancer sufferers, people with immune diseases, newborns etc who can't get vaccinated even if they wanted to.

I think posting something factually inaccurate and as egregious asnyourbexamplenshould either be challenged or possibly deleted. There's a whole load of content around anti vaccinations and a blanket ban on all of it without discussion would be wrong. People who are anti vaccine are generally quite hard of thinking though.

There's a lot of truth in that too. I'm not sure that's classified as ignorance though, if anything the danger is information overload where it becomes difficult to discern facts from fiction. I also see that there are calls for social media companies to ban anti vax stuff. Personally I think that's a really bad idea. Banning thing will just fuel a justified sense of grievance and won't eradicate these views. They need robust rebuttals not censorship.

Not sure why mobile phones limit intelligence. If anything it has expanded knowledge as long as you are aware of the pitfalls of an echo chamber and use a range of sources. I think you'd find that general ignorance was probably a fair bit higher about certain matters a few decades ago.

I know football is all about different opinions, but I don't understand how you couldn't have looked at Theo running directly at players and thought "that's exactly what we've been missing for ages."

Have you been drinking?

There's a number you could point to (Clarke gave the example of Asians in It) but lets go for an obvious one and say sprinters.

It's an odd thing to bring up. Him being black or uneducated-if that is what he is- has nothing to do with it. It's actually a smart decision on his part or whoever is advising him. If I had the cash and the high profile I'd probably do it too.

I think there's both cultural and ethnic reasons why some groups prefer certain professions over others. I think we all accept that there are biological factors between ethnicties which means they are going to be better or more attracted to certain roles than others.

That's a weird prejudice for you to express. I think that because he used and continues to use a PR firm: Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United star whose free school meals campaign forced the government into a u-turn earlier this month, has join Roc Nation, the American talent agency founded by Shawn Carter, better known as Beyonce's other half Jay-Z. The Telegraph has today reported that the footballer actually signed to the agency in April, and now represents him in his philanthropic work as well as PR and marketing.

Let's entertain the idea for a moment that it is true that one reason there are less participation in football from young women and girls is because they don't like the football being kicked at them. Don't you think that would be worthy of a discussion when talking about lower participation rates?

With respect, I really doubt that particular campaign has an awful lot to do with Marcus Rashford himself and an awful lot more to do with his PR team though I suppose your point could be that Clarke should have employed something similar?

So do you not think there are personality traits that on average are shared to a greater extent amongst a certain ethnicity or cultural group? Not exactly beyond the realms of possibility that this would lead to certain groups of people favouring some professions over others.

But equally understandable why the club are not releasing the specifics?

That's amazing. Thanks for sharing.

Agreed. Not a chance will it be an old white man regardless of their ability.