RicoS321

No we were not promised bodies in the street. We had 60K deaths inclusive of a lockdown. The suggestion was that it would be closer to 500K without one. The infection rate and death rate was doubling every four days in the early part of lockdown until measures were taken. That 500K seems reasonably valid. The nightingale hospitals were a show pony from an insipid government built on PR. The chief medical officers were human beings who made mistakes like the rest of us. The point is to limit those mistakes, not eliminate them. You've nailed it with your last sentence. The scale at which you'd have to engineer something like that makes conspiracy impossible. There are plenty of opportunists in the UK government and their close mates who are directly benefiting from this crisis, but opportunism is exactly what it is, they've not conspired with the rest of the world to fake it. So, no, I don't even have the slightest inkling that I am being lied to. If I was, then it would be at such a mind-blowing level of conspiracy that I would be completely fine with it, as there's no chance I'd argue with someone who could pull off something like that.

But it's not both of them though, that's the fucking point. It's the person behind them in the shop or next to them on the bus. Then the unsuspecting relatives of those folk. Were you fucking asleep when 60k people died because the government tried herd immunity? And failed. Of course individual people don't get to choose herd immunity, it's all or nothing. That's why it's herd immunity. Your arguments are circular, you must realise that?

Fuck me. Can we assume that the virus is real, that the infection rate doubles and that it kills 1-2% of people or 5% if hospitals get overwhelmed for the purposes of this discussion? Those will be roughly the figures that the government is working to, so for our understanding, we can use those figures. I am not asking you to believe them. Assuming the above, do you see the issue with allowing a stadium full of people and businesses to not follow the rules? Or do you think that 20k people at pittodrie could avoid contact with people who might also be in contact with someone who is in contact with someone at high risk of death from covid?

You're not saying that anyone should be free to hold their own opinion. You're saying that people should be allowed to act on that opinion regardless of its effect on others. Corybn has not been prevented from exercising freedom of speech. He could easily have made his points in a group, maintaining social distancing etc. You also seem to be mixing fact with opinion and belief in some bizarre fashion. They're not interchangeable. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and nobody is attempting to prevent that. Just don't be surprised if someone calls you out for being a dick, like in Corbyn's case. Denying covid is very similar to denying the Holocaust, that's why. You'd have to be a fucking moron to believe that either didn't occur. Again, if that's your belief then you're free to hold it, but just expect to be ridiculed or treated as a bad actor for having those views. It's quite acceptable.

What part of climate change is a matter of opinion? I've never seen him in the media until recently, I've seen his presentations on YouTube though, the boy's a cunt. You're not a stupid though, are you? You must see the difference between potentially spreading covid and being free to think covid is a hoax? You can freely do one without the other.

Holy shite, you don't believe that do you? That's fairly warped logic. If I believe that anthrax will heal cancer (I suppose it would!) and I set up a stall handing out leaflets talking about this new wonder drug, I think that would be endangering the public, in spite of my retarded opinions. Piers Corbyn has exercised his right to free speech by lying about climate change for the last 20 years without being arrested. The man's a fucking cunt who deserves a fucking hiding. Bought and paid for little charlatan.

Watching Damages at the minute, been good. Not sure what planet I was on when it first came out that I hadn't seen it, but been worth a catch-up so far.

Because they knew that it would go down well with their fans and the rest of the clubs would ensure it was happening without them anyway. Basic politics.

I'm being informed, not dictated to. That seems like an irrational response based on the person talking, I'm not particularly AFC partisan, but I think she got it completely wrong on the AFC thing. That's acceptable though, it's okay to be wrong. She's done a lot more right than the cunt down South, and communicating with the public daily is one of those things. There has been a local lockdown in Glasgow since September 2nd, I'm not sure where you're getting your info from? My sister in law said similar to you and it turned out she was getting her info from Facebook. The difference between the Weegie lockdown and the Aberdeen lockdown was that the Aberdeen one affected pubs and people travelling in and out of the city. Aberdeen's well publicised spreadings occurred in pubs when they opened. The Weegies were having house parties and spreading the virus that way, so they were restricted on 2nd, with nobody allowed to visit one another. That seems quite similar to the Aberdeen one, just affecting a different area. Like the AFC case, there is a lot to learn with how you deal with these things and Stugeon is also learning on the job, so I can cut her a bit of slack. I don't think cafes needed to be shut in Aberdeen to teach pubs a lesson for example, but it was likely important to come down reasonably heavy handedly so that pubs like Soul don't allow giant queues to form outside again. I expect the Weegie pubs quickly learned from that too, and most pubs seem to have got themselves sorted out in terms of protocols and arrangements (certainly the ones I've been to in Aberdeen). Similarly the Weegies not being allowed to visit one another will cut down on house parties. Finally, you say that you have lost your civil liberty? That suggests that you want to be able to go out and do the things that you did prior to the pandemic (roughly speaking)? Coronavirus spreads quickly, in about 10 days, 1 person could indirectly infect between 8 and 1,000. Within 20 it could between 64 and 500,000 assuming no restrictions are placed on people's civil liberty (based on 2-3 days infection doubling). Either we all get coronavirus to maintain your liberty, which is fine. Or we try to eradicate it with strict measures and then deal swiftly with individual cases, restricting those who test positive before the doubling becomes unmanageable (as is clearly happening in the UK and elsewhere already). You're saying that you want everyone to get coronavirus to maintain your civil liberty, correct?

I'm not being dictated to. Are you? I'm not an SNP supporter, but surely you understand that there is a message that needs to be relayed, regardless of who is relaying it? You're perfectly free to say that "you don't believe it" on here, so why don't you? What don't you believe, specifically? In terms of civil liberty, surely it's a fairly straight forward position: a) you don't believe that coronavirus spreads exponentially and that x% of those that get it will die and: you believe that the government knows this and is trying to curtail your freedoms the government doesn't know this and is acting in good faith b) you accept that a portion of people will get seriously ill or die, but you believe that your own civil liberty trumps that

Which bit?

What, so they just faked all the shots on goal and the visible annoyance at the end of the match? Celtic (the club, not the fans) benefit directly from the status quo, there's no way on earth they'd prefer Aberdeen to be sitting second ahead of the other scum (again, the club, not the fans).

Have they? I'm not seeing anything in the news. Where are you seeing that? Has Bryson actually signed for them like?

Cheers, just got the highlights at the end there. Decent result. The sort of game the big team would fuck up.

Fit telly's it on?

Nae standing, nae singing or shouting. Code of Conduct

4 dons in the squad. The most from one team? You'd think they'd put the teams on the squad list. Dicks.

It's the Soother.

I think he actually signed for Reims. That's why I was mentioning him, as I'd not really heard much about him before.

Fit aboot the lad Hornby? Any good? It's been a while since we've had a 6ft5 fucker up front to hoof it to. Get him in.

He missed 18 games in 9 seasons according to your own statistics. That's a sign of a player who most definitely isn't injury prone. Who else has an average injury rate of 2 games per season over nearly a decade? There's no pattern there until he reached Aberdeen (why do you even think that there is?), his ankle injury clearly taking its toll more than normal for that type of injury. He's a guy that has always prided himself on his fitness, so I think a degree of bad luck is apparent in this case.

He wasn't injury prone though. He also doesn't come across as a charlatan at all. Could you not accept that there might be a possibility of bad luck in this instance?

Fuck, I forgot about Stephen Hughes! Hartley was decent for a few months, just couldn't retain his fitness and Rae wasn't totally shite. Robson was good, Anderson too. In reality, we don't actually take too many older players back up the road. Bryson was still a fit guy in his early thirties, there was no good reason for not getting a couple of good years out of him, I think we just got unlucky. I suspect the success of our signings of older Scottish guys is probably about on par with our signing of lower league English pish and Venezualan fullbacks. I think it's fairly important not to get too hysterical about it either like some folk do. Transfers are not an easy thing to get right and you're really hoping for 50-60% success rate, so you're always likely to get some dross. It's important to focus on that (arbitrary) ratio of success, which McInnes has been failing to meet for the last few seasons. Ironically, it appears he has a 100% success rate this season with the transfer kitty limited (I'm discounting Edmunson of course). Hoban, Hayes, McRorie and Watkins have all slotted into our first 11 comfortably so far. The pressure of not being able to spend willy nilly is perhaps a good thing. The club just need to get a better setup in place for scouting and rating players.

Difficult to say though, the lack of match sharpness was very clear, McLean, Fleck, Armstrong and McTominay especially. The next set of games will give a much better indication. Seems like Clarke wants to play a back five, but McKenna is the only reliable centre half in the squad at the moment. Think we'll really struggle if we get past Israel, but we could well fluke our way to a tournament if we just avoid getting covid.

That's a fucking awful performance, but a good result. Players just looked way off the pace, which is maybe understandable at this stage of most of their seasons. Dykes did quite well, McKenna fine too. McTominay with probably the worst defensive performance this century. Fucking awful like. Looked like a midfielder playing in defence.