Thug

Traded immortality for 1 season in a team that very likely would have won everything even without him. He’s like that guy that killed the gold egg laying goose because he wanted all his eggs at once. On the flip side, his departure kicked off a chain of events that led to the arrival of Emery. If I had to choose one or the other, it’s not even close.

For too long our deputies have been garbage. We’ve finally reached a point where we’re not fussed if our record £50m signing is off the boil, because we have multiple options on the bench. The pressure is off the individuals. 2 seasons ago if our record signing was not up to par every single game we’d all be reaching for the pitchforks.

I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at all to be honest. Death certificates when completed (in hospital particularly) are just one of those things that gets delegated to someone to complete. Often done without proper care or attention to detail, as quickly as possible, with the minimum amount of thought. Even more so because during the pandemic they allowed doctors that were not looking after the patient that died to complete them. Inaccurate death certificates are borne out of laziness (or time pressure) rather than conspiracy.

Indeed. But as part of any general discussion if there are inaccuracies being posted, it is important to correct them, otherwise people will go away believing disinformation. For example, if I now write that nurses can complete death certificates - I would expect someone to correct me even though it has no bearing on the current discussion. Hope that makes sense

You’re misunderstanding the article. Read it again. And once again, the doctor decides what to put in the death certificate, no one else. There is no requirement to put covid 19 on the death certificate if the doctor does not believe it to have any relevance at all to the death. https://www.gmc-uk.org/news/news-archive/joint-statement-on-death-certification-during-the-covid-19-pandemic

Where does it say that you MUST write covid 19 on the death certificate if tested positive within 28 days?

I think you’re getting mixed up between statistical reporting and what goes on the death certificate. People who the doctor completing the certificate believed that Covid was a factor in their death had covid on their death certificate. It is not a requirement that if someone had covid 19 positive result within the last 28 days that it goes on the death certificate.

I didn’t disagree with any of that. So you are agreeing with me, that the UK ‘assistance’ is not required and they do not need to be there. Excellent.

You’ve just gone full circle. You said Mossad didn’t need any help, more than capable. Best IT in the world. So once again, what are we doing there, our help isn’t needed according to you. Or does intel only flow one way?

Yh, it’s very difficult. I think the stock response at that point was if they had it, put it down. Your last sentence is interesting though, I’d not seen that, but you may well be right. Probably didn’t pay enough attention to it and didn’t notice.

No, you’re right. I prob chose the wrong message to reply to.

I think @Rugeley Villa was making the point that the reporting of covid 19 on the death certificate was often made when it actually may not have been a direct cause or even a contributing factor to death. At one point, the statistics reporting was going even a stage further than this… in order to make the statistics more ‘up to date’. Rather than report the number of covid deaths by seeing whether covid 19 was on a death certificate or not (which can take up to 14 days to collate data) they would be using the statistics of whether anybody that had died had tested +ve within the 28 days prior to the death - this would cut down the reporting time to 2-3 days. They later found that there was quite a discrepancy between the figures. it is only recently that they stopped using this statistic - and focused solely on whether covid 19 appeared on the death certificate or not.

lol. Read your posts before posting man. You’re so hell bent on criticising every post I make sometimes you come across as a little… odd.

I don’t follow you.

You’re actually absolutely right about this. Ill find the citation once I finish work.

We are absolutely on the same page. Absolutely. BUT you don’t HAVE to do it, right? You can CHOOSE not to smoke? You can CHOOSE to smoke? You can CHOOSE not to have the 4th kebab this week? Or indeed to have it. You know full well that smoking, eating kebabs and not exercising increase your risk of a cardiovascular event, but you are absolutely free to do what you want, right? All I’m saying is, you can’t force your opinion on other people. I find that if you’re very honest about everything, and take the time to explain things (like your point about 50th of safety data from similar treatments) then people are much more likely to accept it. Telling them they HAVE to do something, just because we say so, tends to have the opposite effect. My point of about lack of safety information wasn’t to suggest that I believe that to be the case, it was a ‘reason’ people may choose not to get vaccinated.

Even minor differences between chemical compounds can have drastically different results. Or even other ingredients used in the manufacturing process. There was a drug called ranitidine first used in the 70s, and continued to be a very common h2 receptor antagonist prescribed right up until 2019 when it was removed from the market due to safety concerns with a component being carcinogenic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranitidine Other drugs in its class (eg cimetidine) with very similar chemical structures were found not to have this property. 1976 to 2019. 43 years of it being used before they find that it has cancer causing risks. I’ve had my vaccines. I advise people to have their vaccines, because on balance MY INFORMED decision led me to the conclusion it would be best for me. indeed you can refer to the 13.5 billion doses administered as a good safety record. Can you now show me the data proving its safety 10 years post dose? No. Exactly. Because it doesn’t exist. Like I said, on balance, I would say they’re likely to be safe. But you cannot deny unknown factors. They told people factor XIII was safe. It gave people HIV due to the way it was collected. They told mothers thalidomide was safe, it took years before they connected it to teratogenicity. I'm very much pro-vaccination But let’s not pretend it’s risk free, and that anyone who has doubts is intellectually challenged.

Agreed. Which makes it even more suspicious re: why we are ‘assisting’

4) lack of safety data - without the conspiracy theories. 5) perceived previous bad experience 6) exercising your right to make an informed decision. 7) taking a calculated (and selfish) risk by relying on herd immunity to keep you safe.

We already discussed what an humanitarian pause is. But my answer was to a question about the morality of supplying intel. Indeed, this is probably the wrong thread, but last few pages (including your posts) have been about the supply of intel.

In essence, it’s not objectionable at all. Who wants rockets to fall on Israeli citizens? No one (I’d hope). But it’s the issue of enablement. As it stands Israel has no reason to stop. There’s no fear of retribution, no fear of condemnation, no fear of sanctions. Theres just no reason to stop. We’re telling them, don’t worry, carry on. We’ll keep an eye on anyone else that threatens to intervene. The status quo is that Israel has nothing to lose. No consequences. We are a huge part of enabling it by proving any help at all. We shouldn’t be doing it.

If every opinion was only ever based on primary source evidence, then you’re in for a system shock. There are some reasonable conclusions you can draw from limited evidence - but remain speculation. Lets take your example: now if you had seen his wife with bruising all over her every day for years, then suddenly you saw her without bruising, I think your question would have some weight. No?

To be honest, from being a member of this forum for a very long time, I take your last sentence as a given from 99.999999% of posters here. It’s genuinely a very nice community, so that’s my default position. I think my main issue is that the default position of 2 sides to this ‘war’ To understand my position, I think you need to start thinking of this as a 3 sided war. You have to separate Hamas and the civilians. Hamas do something, and the Gazans suffer. I don’t know the answer. What I see is Hamas, war criminals. IDF, war criminals. The people of Gaza and Israel as the victims.

I don’t think anyone objects to ‘Israel’s right to defend itself.’ But there’s a line, which has long been crossed. At the end of the day, it’s all about opinions- and it’s natural that there’s a chain here where each opinion is largely based on the one before. I would say that my chain is as follows: 1) the Palestinian people are oppressed. 2) Hamas used this sense of injustice to garner support to carry out a horrific attack, with an underlying agenda to incite a reaction from Israel (for a multiple of political reasons) 3) Israel reacted - like I would expect them to. 4) Israel are taking things too far - in my opinion it is no longer about defence - but I would speculate that their objective is now different, but remains under the banner of self protection and to destroy Hamas. I do not believe they are being as surgical as they could. 5) The uk politicians support for 4) is baffling to me because of what I believe in 4) 6) my opinion in 5) leads me to speculate about Starmer’s integrity. (Not just Starmer btw) Like I said, opinions. If anything along that chain changed, then the following opinions would also change.

No I understand that. But what you’re describing is acting the look out while your mate beats up the little kid. I’m not saying it’s wrong, you’re just being a good mate. But own it.