RicoS321

Just back. We weren't terrible. Cameron MOTM, and head in his hands in the 92nd minute as he knew immediately what he should have done (must be weird for a Hun not to automatically cheat). That's the worst Tim team I've seen in a long time. I'd say that they were there for the taking, but not when you have a cursory glance at our first eleven. That midfield is weak as piss. Geiger chasing shadows for a lot of it until he decided he'd had enough (although Shinnie never got up to speed when he came on either). Olusanya played well, apart from when he got the ball, but that's what we needed. Bilalovic was not only poor when he came on, but he also never did the work. Lazy was an understatement and it should be his last appearance for a while. Frame started poorly, but had a good game. Milne did well until he hurt himself with that random slip. Nilsen was good and Morrison was okay, with Molloy just being dependable mostly at the back. Armstrong fine but really needs to be playing further forward so it's easier to deal with his errors, especially towards the end when he was shattered. I'm fairly convinced that Hearts are winning the league after seeing that Tim team.

Then you didn't learn much from your experience of anti vaccine groups, did you? Any reason is a legitimate reason for not being vaccinated. I have a friend whose mum died after being injected prior to a routine operation. She was a fit and healthy under 50 year old who was absolutely terrified she would die being injected. The physical reasons might not be legitimate (and I would hugely disagree), but the social reasons most certainly are. The authoritarian approach of the Californian state officials would have been an absolute dream for the anti vax astroturfers, as you well know. I'm not asking you to have sympathy for @OrlandoDon's position (you should), I'm asking you whether you think preventing children from attending school was an intelligent response based on science?

But, by the same token, there isn't a one to one between being anti COVID vaccine and anti vaxxer. It's perfectly possible to question the efficacy of giving everyone a vaccine they don't necessarily need, that doesn't stand true when referring to measles, polio etc vaccine. It's also possible to note the different responses around the world and discuss where they were authoritarian or otherwise. Despite what you believe about adults not taking the COVID vaccine, do you genuinely believe that it was an appropriate response to prevent a person's children from attending school off the back of it (a position I could completely understand with something like measles)? Is that what the science suggested? Or was it a reach from politicians?

It's a good point. I don't believe that at that stage of the pandemic, the NHS capacity would have been an issue. Not any more of an issue than it has been in the subsequent years and post Brexit in general, where ambulances are regularly waiting hours. In other words, I don't think the primary factor would have been COVID. I say that because those at high risk, and above, say, sixty would likely have made exactly the same decision regardless. The numbers admitted not in those categories shouldn't have been enough to overwhelm anything, any more than it would now. We were still in lockdown when vaccines were on the go, which would have had a far greater impact on spread until those requiring most protection were done. Omicron followed shortly thereafter. I can't be the only one that was left wondering why on earth I was getting my third vaccine just to go to a Dons match, at a stage where it was very clear that it wasn't going to have anywhere near the required impact on spread.

Nice one thanks. I absolutely love a trip to a new ASDA, such beautiful buildings, so I'll likely opt for the last one. Looking forward to it.

I spoke a lot of sense while arguing over the incorrect point though! I think you're right about the lockdown. In terms of adults, my view is that it shouldn't have been as coercive as it was presented in the UK (Scotland, specifically in my case), and it would have been extremely damaging if it had been as authoritarian as @OrlandoDon experienced. I wouldn't present a case against vaccine efficacy, I'm merely critical of its enforcement. That, in my opinion, caused serious ongoing trust issues. There was never any possibility of containing the virus in the UK or US and the vaccination approach should have reflected that. It should have been approached in a similar vein to the flu shot, with a much greater emphasis on hygiene and staying away from others when symptomatic, with significant new measures brought in to force employers' hand on compliance, both then and now. As a fit and healthy adult, the risk to me from COVID is low (I've had it a couple of times, and a mysterious COVID like virus before it had even arrived in the UK apparently), and the biggest risk factor I could have posed was going out or to work, with symptoms, not "not being vaccinated", which in itself is rather meaningless in a country of wildly circulating infections. I'm not seeking to blame governments with hindsight, I completely accept that decisions were made in good faith, and that there was perhaps a certain catharsis, or finality, to being able to point to the symbol of X% population vaccinated, we can open up for business! It certainly provided something of an endpoint.

You turned down what? Not vaccinating your kids is one thing, but only an idiot would turn the chance to a free pizza and film.

My mistake, I thought it was because your kids weren't vaccinated. Although, I believe @Mason89 was arguing on that basis too!

A global pandemic that wasn't wiping out millions of children. Barely any children at all. It was extremely low risk. About as risky as putting them on a bike with a helmet. Of course, if you had a child with an underlying condition, then your risk profile would change significantly. Hence why only 2% of UK children got their three vaccines (98% playing with their children's lives in my opinion). Bottom line is, when it comes to children, if you've had yours vaccinated for COVID without underlying condition, you're likely in a minority. Edit: to remove paragraph not on point

Any advice on the best place to get parked coming from and back to the Aberdeen area? Been about 20 years since I've been.

Really? @OrlandoDon is from Scotland. Children in Scotland weren't being vaccinated. Why on earth would he assume that his children were more susceptible than those based in Scotland who were being told (correctly, IMO) that vaccination was not compulsory, and that children were at very low risk from COVID? Do you have kids? Were they vaccinated for COVID? Mine weren't. Because I'm perfectly capable of reading the various studies and weighing up the risk. Certain countries Australia and NZ from memory) had zero COVID policies, where infections were kept to a minimum via travel policies etc. It would, perhaps, make sense in those countries to pursue a zero COVID stance, with associated mass vaccination (I don't believe so, but that's only with hindsight). That approach was not taken in the UK and US, so the levels of vaccination required would never, ever have created the same scenario. You can't do some hybrid approach to immunity, it's illogical. Californian vaccine policy, I suspect, would be more to do with nudge politics as biological science.

Read what I wrote, and the context in which it was written. Forcing (for all intents and purposes) vaccination of school children for COVID was not based on rigorous science. Hence why it was not required in the UK. Vaccination of children for measles, for example, is based on rigorous science.

"Hello, my name is Elgin Don, and I love the pars. Could I purchase a ticket to see the pars this weekend please? I love Craig Brewster and Stevie Crawford. Until they joined those horrible reds from Aberdeen of course, I hate those guys. Neil Lennon is a wonderful man, who I have nothing but respect for."

I don't think the term anti vaxxer is helpful in any way whatsoever. I think it's created a situation where more people have become "anti all vaccinations", where they previously wouldn't have been. The COVID vaccine is not the same as a measles or polio vaccine, neither in makeup or utility. Whether you were vaccinated or not (I was), preventing children going to school for not taking a COVID vaccination is both authoritarian and unscientific. Creating that regime around vaccination has, in my opinion, needlessly created mistrust (which has obviously been significantly amplified via social media). If I had been forced into getting my children vaccinated, at the time, I would have been in the same position as @OrlandoDon. Conveniently wrapping everyone in the same "anti vaccine" parcel is ignorant, I believe.

Thank goodness, as a top red, I got in early.

It's not the pentagon though, is it? Dick Cheney wasn't the pentagon, neither the rest of the vulture capitalists. The guys who actually make money from these things, and buy guys like Trump and the absolute weirdo Hegseth. What's their angle?

What's the latest vibe in the US @OrlandoDon? I'm assuming they're in full computer game mode in the media? Treating it like a sports event and giving you the run down on all the different types of planes and bombs being used? Any word on what the actual plan is? It's a strange one, I have to say. I'm struggling to find any angle at all that makes sense of the attack. I don't mean from Trump, who's clearly an imbecile, but those that control him. What are their motives? Venezuela was a very good strategic move from a US perspective, and almost seamless in its execution. Iran just seems like a massive error, to an unbelievable degree (in other words, I'm clearly missing something). Iraq was held up as a catastrophe and an error, but it wasn't. In terms of power in the region, it made complete sense. In terms of sustaining high oil prices, it made sense. In terms of transfer of government funds (the US taxpayer) to the wealthy in military, clean-up and oil contracts (in Iraq) it made sense. It was a win for so few people at the expense of American soldiers. Iran is totally different. The only similarity I can see is that oil prices will remain high. The US have gone full in on regime change, whilst in negotiations, so the Iranians aren't going to come back to the table. That means the strait of Hormuz being shut in for months if not years. The US can't defend that across the entire Iranian coast. They also can't indefinitely defend the Saudis oil refineries from drones etc (probably only for a couple of weeks). They can't defend Israel from the multiple attacks they'll sustain either, and they're infrastructure is exceptionally volatile due to location and the fact that they're a highly developed westernised country. From the perspective of war being a racket, it makes little sense either. This is an aerial bombardment and the defence is also aerial (missiles against drones). The US doesn't have the capacity to replace its (the US and Israel) defence systems as quickly as they run dry. They needed a much more drawn out affair in order to keep the money flowing. Power wise, it just leaves a mess, but with Israel and Saudi significantly weaker. I don't get it. Again, not Trump, but those behind him.

It is worth arguing over. You're wrong. Very clearly.

Word of a DonsTalk XI being invited.

You're arguing against points I'm not making. I'm asking a fairly straightforward question of who in our team would get into theirs? I'm asking from the perspective of our own side.

Hearts have a better best starting eleven than us as a whole, and in every single position. I think. I'd like to hear who you think would get into their side from ours?

Agreed, we'll see where he is at the end of the season. It's almost always a case of better the devil you know, which is why managers tend to stick with known quantities, and I don't blame them. Imagine we'd kept McGrath for example? Shinnie has to be worth a new deal on those grounds alone. If Cameron does anything between now and the end of the season then he would also be worth a punt (at present, I'd not break the bank for him, he flatters to deceive a bit despite a lot of effort).

I think it would be a big risk to keep Geiger on existing showings. I think we could do a lot better. Motherwell have about 4 better midfielders than him already! I'm not writing him off, because there is the possibility that he's just getting up to speed, but it looks to me like he's just not quite good enough in several areas. Players like that can be quite deceptive, I usually describe them as Milsom types, they look good because they have good balance, a nice touch etc, but they just turn out to be nothing players. However, if he can work on his athleticism, the average parts could turn into real attributes, if he's first to second balls and does the coverage and work required of a top midfielder. I think he has to do it this season though, or else we'll end up making the Palaversa error with him.

I am. Huge Dandy. Well dressed, and great hair.

I've never understood the expectation, and constant call - mainly by pundits and idiot managers - for consistency. It makes no sense. Ironically, it's likely the cause of most of the issues we see. It's created this ridiculous scenario where we strip incidents of all context, all deliberateness, and package them all neatly into a particular "type" of foul or punishable crime. No incident is the same, and the motivations and actions of the players involved are very often different, and can most often be interpreted best by a referee in real time and at real speed. Asking for consistency across multiple games, at different times, involving different referees and different players is the height of stupidity. It's like asking for consistency between Nisbet firing one in from ten yards, and Olusanya kicking it with his standing foot first from exactly the same spot.