Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by dynamark Thu 26 Mar - 20:14

First topic message reminder :

I suppose it sort of makes sense with the Dyson effort because they just have to switch to blow.
Hope it works.
The self employed will have to adjust in future and get a bit closer to the NI and paye system.It has always been a bit unwritten that you can limit your contributions somewhat as self employed in the building trade and others but a big part of the economy. Again this may close a few gaps

by dynamark Sat 28 Mar - 8:25

Beni there is an awful lot of rough sleeping in the Wembley area for some reason Our company has a big problem with finding them in basements and bin stores in blocks of flats. I would guess if you are begging for want of a better word the lack of folk about may make that even harder and encourage them into what shelter and accommodation is being offered.
Cant help with the sky issue but im looking at youtube to watch classic short sport stories.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 9:24

https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1243486916311465984?s=19

Are we allowed to accept the views from a medical journal. Or is that not allowed either?

Also, anyone seen the YouTube clip of mps cheering after rejecting the vote to increase nurses salary. All but 1 tory voted against it. Yet, we now have people clapping the nhs after voting tory. Hope these people actually have their eyes opened.

by Soul Requiem Sat 28 Mar - 11:22

beninho wrote:https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1243486916311465984?s=19

Are we allowed to accept the views from a medical journal. Or is that not allowed either?

Also, anyone seen the YouTube clip of mps cheering after rejecting the vote to increase nurses salary. All but 1 tory voted against it. Yet, we now have people clapping the nhs after voting tory. Hope these people actually have their eyes opened.

Is that the same Lancet that erroneously linked the MMR jab with autism and caused social panic?

Your continued insistence on making this a political issue sums you up.

by dynamark Sat 28 Mar - 12:01

2 researchers from Imperial college London one predicts 6000 deaths and the other 250000 you wonder who pays these guys .6000 related to CV would be a right result in some regards(probably around 750000 die each year in normal times) plus some economic and social 'cost'
I see Bright House is looking like folding which lets face it no bad thing and some of the restaurant chains in trouble were running on empty anyway fighting the takeaway trade

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 12:54

Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1243486916311465984?s=19

Are we allowed to accept the views from a medical journal. Or is that not allowed either?

Also, anyone seen the YouTube clip of mps cheering after rejecting the vote to increase nurses salary. All but 1 tory voted against it. Yet, we now have people clapping the nhs after voting tory. Hope these people actually have their eyes opened.

Is that the same Lancet that erroneously linked the MMR jab with autism and caused social panic?

Your continued insistence on making this a political issue sums you up.

Your weird head in sand defence of anything slightly critical of the tories sums you up. We obviously have different opinions on many things, but I didn't have a I play with my 2inch cock over nurses not having the salary increased like the tory boys.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 12:57

Anyone seen the video of Boris a few weeks ago saying how he was shaking everyone's hands. And no he has a virus, what a buffoon.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 13:00

Soul, are you a brexiteer?

by Soul Requiem Sat 28 Mar - 13:06

beninho wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:https://twitter.com/mattuthompson/status/1243486916311465984?s=19

Are we allowed to accept the views from a medical journal. Or is that not allowed either?

Also, anyone seen the YouTube clip of mps cheering after rejecting the vote to increase nurses salary. All but 1 tory voted against it. Yet, we now have people clapping the nhs after voting tory. Hope these people actually have their eyes opened.

Is that the same Lancet that erroneously linked the MMR jab with autism and caused social panic?

Your continued insistence on making this a political issue sums you up.

Your weird head in sand defence of anything slightly critical of the tories sums you up. We obviously have different opinions on many things, but I didn't have a I play with my 2inch man sausage over nurses not having the salary increased like the tory boys.

Ah no are you starting to crack and now resorting to insults?

I'm starting to think you lack any sort of intelligence.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 13:11

Was that an insult in the same post about resorting to insults.

You are a tory fanboy, we get it..

I'm just not buying the cant criticise or question the government line.

by Soul Requiem Sat 28 Mar - 13:14

And you thoroughly dislike Boris Johnson we get it.

People can criticise if they understand what they're criticising, blindly holding opinions with no base knowledge however achieves nothing aside from highlight a tribal view. You disagree with the course of action because of who it is, plain and simple.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 13:20

Ok, you don't like people with views they are not experts on.

Do you therefore think that Brexit should be cancelled?

by Soul Requiem Sat 28 Mar - 13:22

I'm not really overly interested in Brexit one way or another, it has no relevance to the current situation at all. It's nothing more than whataboutery.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 13:24

Just trying to understand your views. If people can't be expected to have views without having full knowledge, how can we proceed with brexit when the referendum was voted on by people without full knowledge of trade deals etc.

by beninho Sat 28 Mar - 13:33

I will add, I generally accept peoples views, and have no real issues with whatever people want to accept, apart from racist, sexist etc. Just because someone sees something differently isn't wrong.

I'm not so keen on being told to not express your own opinions though. Or only allowing an opinion if you have full knowledge. That opens up people just talking about what they are experts in which would be very dull indeed.

by Soul Requiem Sat 28 Mar - 16:46

I will say that there's something quite unpleasant about statements like; 'if we keep deaths below 20,000 we will have done very well'.

by dynamark Sun 29 Mar - 9:51

Soul it is unpleasant but tis possibly a truth.Facts are around 15000 pass each week every week.
All we can is make our own contribution and stick to the guidance.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 29 Mar - 11:39

I had a nice experience early this morning driving to my Mum's place. We're both OK luckily... and visits are allowed here.

As I was going by one of the many golf courses along the way I was distracted by quite a few folk in colourful attire playing their usual game of what struck me as a very well manicured course*. In the early morning autumn sunshine the fairways looked like carpet amongst some huge stately trees... the greens like organically-shaped billiard tables. However it was the few groups of players in very colourful clothing that stood out in contrast to this lovely verdant scenery.

My first thought was "...hang on... who do these people think they are? Are they aware what's going on?"

But almost immediately it struck me: No, actually they've got it 100% right. Life shouldn't stop. What better way to spend a peaceful Sunday morning? So relaxed and casual it all seemed. Healthiness and leisure personified. They weren't up in each other's faces and it looked as though they were maintaining a safe social distance too. Wink

All this in the space of a few hundred metres and in about 20-30 seconds - as I drove by them at a respectable speed. It made me feel really happy to see people simply enjoying themselves playing the great game of golf.

* It's quite a nice golf course. I drove along past the fairway on the 11th and saw the colourfully dressed folk on the 10th green.

Spoiler:

by McLaren Sun 29 Mar - 13:20

Pal

I am a little confused as to why we can walk the exact route we would take to play a round but can't stop to hit shots along the way. If you walked it with a dog you could for example stop to throw its ball. I assume it is to do with the club staff members who are not considered necessary that would be needed to keep the course playable.

What are the current rules for isolation in Aus?

Also it had better be a nice club, AU$11000 joining fee and AU$3700 per year for my age bracket. In the UK we forget how expensive golf is around the rest of the world.

by McLaren Sun 29 Mar - 13:27

kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

by beninho Sun 29 Mar - 13:40

I assume golf courses have closed as just being jon essential businesses? Though I read somewhere saying could still maintain the course.

If flags are removed, racks are removed, and you play in mo more than 2, golf would probably be fine. If you pay online or by card.

by McLaren Sun 29 Mar - 13:49

Ben

If you restrict course use to just members then you don't even have to worry about paying. Just walk on and hit some shots. Even as singles it would be enjoyable enough. Very nice weather here in Edinburgh on the first day of the golf season. Sad

by Soul Requiem Sun 29 Mar - 13:51

Give people an inch and they'll take a yard.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 29 Mar - 13:56

McLaren wrote:Pal

I am a little confused as to why we can walk the exact route we would take to play a round but can't stop to hit shots along the way. If you walked it with a dog you could for example stop to throw its ball. I assume it is to do with the club staff members who are not considered necessary that would be needed to keep the course playable.

What are the current rules for isolation in Aus?

Also it had better be a nice club, AU$11000 joining fee and AU$3700 per year for my age bracket. In the UK we forget how expensive golf is around the rest of the world.

Not exactly sure about the latest rules on that particular course, Mac but it looked like 2 pairs spaced apart if you know what I mean. Another pair was further back about 50-100 meters or so but not sure if they were part of the same group. Looked like the grass was cut yesterday so some green-keeping staff must still be there.

Current rules here are fairly strict but not like parts of Europe and the US; everything except for supermarkets, filling stations is closed but some cafes/fast food places are still open for take away only. Spacing marks all over the ground at doors and inside near the checkouts for those places.
Chemists and hospitals are still open of course.

Drive thru McDonalds, KFC, etc still open. Public "gatherings" limited to 2 people. So not a total lock down... but late this afternoon the Government issued strong advice (only) to stay at home unless shopping for essentials, medical care or compassionate needs. All public playgrounds, outdoor gyms are closed... but not golf courses it seems.

Fines for disobeying: AUD $1,000 for individuals, up to $11,000 or jail time for people/businesses if they fail to comply with mass gathering bans.

Yeah, the full membership fees are quite expensive... this one is in quite a posh area. It's less for public golf courses in the outer suburbs... unless it's some boutique type set up.

by kwinigolfer Sun 29 Mar - 14:46

McLaren wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

Mac,
If one can get by the fact that the White House ignored every warning sign going (as did most of Europe), and every news conference is nothing more than a campaign rally to humour his base and pick fights with Democrats, the individual States are much more autonomous - we have a Republican Governor who's doing a pretty good job, no complaints.
But the fact that the Federal Government started to take this seriously about two months too late has handicapped the entire country, no doubt.

by JAS Mon 30 Mar - 9:51

McLaren wrote:Pal

I am a little confused as to why we can walk the exact route we would take to play a round but can't stop to hit shots along the way. If you walked it with a dog you could for example stop to throw its ball. I assume it is to do with the club staff members who are not considered necessary that would be needed to keep the course playable.

What are the current rules for isolation in Aus?

Also it had better be a nice club, AU$11000 joining fee and AU$3700 per year for my age bracket. In the UK we forget how expensive golf is around the rest of the world.

Mac....because we've been told not to!!

It's all about risk when it comes down to it. In between the totally risk averse (who won't go out) and the totally gung-ho who think they'll never catch it or if they do they'll shake it off, there's a large group that as the weeks go by will weaken in their resolve and start mixing and THAT is what will cause the 2nd wave. It only takes one gun-ho fool in the 4ball in front to be infected and asymptomatic, he/she then touches a flagstick or several, leaves infected droplets on other on-course objects like benches, ball washers, even vegetation. Then there's the getting to/from the course, unless they walk they'll be using a car, which will sooner or later need fuel, so...fuel pumps, can you be sure they're clean? Or like you maybe get the bus, so seats, handles etc.

Obviously the same risks (probably even greater) apply to shopping BUT, grocery shopping at some point is essential whereas a round of golf is not. You have to accept a certain degree of risk but mitigate it as much as you can.

by JAS Mon 30 Mar - 9:58

As an aside (this is one for Joey perhaps), in the early days of the crisis we were told that the virus doesn't like high temperature (27degs+) and that we should hope for a good hot summer which will help banish it.

However, the Southern Hemisphere has been in summer yet it has penetrated Southern hemisphere countries too. Is it the case that the spread is less pronounced? Is it the case that social distancing measures need not be so stringent?

by dynamark Mon 30 Mar - 10:14

JAS I too thought that re temperature I think the basis was that is what tends to happen with flu and other seasonal
issues.Some stuff today I thought was interesting and probably stands correct that younger people have not been subject to as many other viruss and types of corona so the immune system kicks in fast.Older folk have had similar virus before and the body may well react initially by thinking I know what this is and can cope giving it a chance to get going before realising no this is new and I need to get on the case and deal with it

by **Pal Joey** Mon 30 Mar - 10:29

It's not so hot here now, JAS, but back on January 24 when the first cases appeared here it was indeed much warmer.

People here are a little more worried though as we approach our winter flu season. We don't want a scenario where it levels off and gets under control up north in your early summer, then mutates in the southern winter and then gets shipped back over to you for your northern autumn/winter in a more aggressive form.

The 'virus doesn't like hot temperatures' theory is interesting considering places like Indonesia, Philippines and Brazil (if you can trust their numbers) have seen a relatively low number of deaths in recent weeks. They are not huge numbers in terms of other places (in deaths per million... 0.4, 0.7, 0.6 respectively) but I'd imagine some of those countries' health systems would be less well prepared for a huge spike in cases.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 10:46

McLaren wrote:Navy

Not sure I get what you are saying. Do you think reduced spending as a percentage of GDP on our healthcare system vs other western European countries is just my bias or did it really happen under austerity?

I said that, as a black/white argument, is simplistic. Yes, more money would have 'helped', but no-one would have been preparing for this, specifically. There wouldn't have been more vents or CPAP kit. It's academic anyway; we are where we are. What I hope is that once this is over, there's a re-think re. politics etc in this country; won't hold my breath though.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 10:51

beninho wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost#click=https://t.co/mO0YDo5Swk

But it's not about the money saving...

Just out of interest, what do you think of NICE making any recommendations NOT to allow a drug/treatment to be available on the NHS?

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 10:54

Soul Requiem wrote:I will say that there's something quite unpleasant about statements like; 'if we keep deaths below 20,000 we will have done very well'.

Why? It's stating an opinion based on likely outcomes, which are based on the science etc as we know it now.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 10:57

McLaren wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

Pray tell, Mac. What do you think Boris et al have done so wrong since this started? Please don't include issues relating to pre-outbreak and/or political bias...

by Soul Requiem Mon 30 Mar - 10:57

navyblueshorts wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:I will say that there's something quite unpleasant about statements like; 'if we keep deaths below 20,000 we will have done very well'.
Why? It's stating an opinion based on likely outcomes, which are based on the science etc as we know it now.

It's not the stating of the 20,000 that I have an issue with but rather that we'd consider that a job well done, trivialises things somewhat for me and doesn't give much comfort to the families of those who have died.

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:00

navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost#click=https://t.co/mO0YDo5Swk

But it's not about the money saving...
Just out of interest, what do you think of NICE making any recommendations NOT to allow a drug/treatment to be available on the NHS?

This is going over my head, as I am unsure whether this related to a specific issue that I don't know about. But, in a way, you would like to hope any available treatment was available on the NHS.

My sister has had 2 bouts of cancer in the last few years, and is thankfully not dead and has the all clear, though is now high risk so not allowed out for 12 weeks. Anyway, when she had breast cancer, she had part private cover, due to her police cover. She was told by the oncologist who does both, that as she was private they were able to do it a different way which was better. Now I'm glad for my sister, but also think it's pretty wrong.

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:03

navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

Pray tell, Mac. What do you think Boris et al have done so wrong since this started? Please don't include issues relating to pre-outbreak and/or political bias...

On the day Italy announced lockdown, the Cheltenham festival had 60k people, and liverpool had 3500 Madrid fans over to a game. That's a starter for something probably not handled well.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 11:04

dynamark wrote:JAS I too thought that re temperature I think the basis was that is what tends to happen with flu and other seasonal
issues.Some stuff today I thought was interesting and probably stands correct that younger people have not been subject to as many other viruss and types of corona so the immune system kicks in fast.Older folk have had similar virus before and the body may well react initially by thinking I know what this is and can cope giving it a chance to get going before realising no this is new and I need to get on the case and deal with it

Flu and colds don't disappear in Summer - infection rates go down as people are more likely out and about and the warmer temps will reduce viral half-life on surfaces.

As to that theory about mortality link w/ age, if you've encountered an infection before, your reaction/defence (in terms of mobilising relevant adaptive immune response) will be much faster than if you haven't. I don't think immunity works the way you suggest. Suspect it's more likely that the elderly have a compromised immune system cf. kids, simply because they're old and its worn/wearing out, much like a lot of other tissue function.

by Soul Requiem Mon 30 Mar - 11:09

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

Pray tell, Mac. What do you think Boris et al have done so wrong since this started? Please don't include issues relating to pre-outbreak and/or political bias...

On the day Italy announced lockdown, the Cheltenham festival had 60k people, and liverpool had 3500 Madrid fans over to a game. That's a starter for something probably not handled well.

A bit selective there.

Liverpool vs Atletico 11th March
Valencia vs Atalanta 10th March
PSG vs Dortmund 11th March
Leipzig vs Tottenham 10th March

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:12

Valencia and PSG were behind closed doors.
Leipzig wasn't, but probably should have been.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 11:14

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
beninho wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost#click=https://t.co/mO0YDo5Swk

But it's not about the money saving...
Just out of interest, what do you think of NICE making any recommendations NOT to allow a drug/treatment to be available on the NHS?

This is going over my head, as I am unsure whether this related to a specific issue that I don't know about. But, in a way, you would like to hope any available treatment was available on the NHS.

My sister has had 2 bouts of cancer in the last few years, and is thankfully not dead and has the all clear, though is now high risk so not allowed out for 12 weeks. Anyway, when she had breast cancer, she had part private cover, due to her police cover. She was told by the oncologist who does both, that as she was private they were able to do it a different way which was better. Now I'm glad for my sister, but also think it's pretty wrong.

Glad your sister is OK. All I'm suggesting is that in a publicly funded NHS, some decisions have to include discussions about money.
If we want state-of-the-art on the NHS, we'll have to pay for it. I don't have a problem with that, but the public deserve a proper conversation on the subject. If we want x, it'll cost us y etc.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 30 Mar - 11:17

beninho wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:
kwinigolfer wrote:
Very uncertain Mac.

Don't want to sound alarmist but I really feel sorry for you having to go through this with Trump in charge. Boris is bad enough but there is no telling what Trump might do, or more importantly not do.

Pray tell, Mac. What do you think Boris et al have done so wrong since this started? Please don't include issues relating to pre-outbreak and/or political bias...

On the day Italy announced lockdown, the Cheltenham festival had 60k people, and liverpool had 3500 Madrid fans over to a game. That's a starter for something probably not handled well.

Excuse me, but WTF does that have to do w/ Johnson and partners? Jesus. People need to get over this absurd 20:20 hindsight. It's not just UKG that could, arguably, have done more and faster; it's the whole bloody planet. Stop letting political bias get in the way of the realities here. It's a moot point, none of the other parties would have done any better. Aren't you also forgetting that UKG's response has been directed by science? Are you saying that's a) not the case and b) other, non-experts know better?

by Soul Requiem Mon 30 Mar - 11:20

beninho wrote:Valencia and PSG were behind closed doors.
Leipzig wasn't, but probably should have been.

Not like there were thousands of fans congregating on the streets of Paris were there?

by McLaren Mon 30 Mar - 11:23

JAS wrote:
Mac....because we've been told not to!!

It's all about risk when it comes down to it.

I am not thinking of flaunting the advice but I was pointing out that the risk of playing as a single would be no different to someone walking on the course.

by super_realist Mon 30 Mar - 11:24

I've seen a lot of idiots mentioning that what we are seeing is as a result of capitalism or greed and that we should tear down our capitalist systems in favour of more socialist ones, whilst they conveniently ignore that this whole virus began in a land where communism is forced upon them and is a direct result of their practices.
Wet markets are not a traditional thing in China, they are only around 40 years old and are down to the practices of the ruling Communist party which limited the availability of food. More capitalism is China might actually have helped.

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:25

It was the government had a decision to make regards to large crowds, they didn't make the call. They should have, other countries did. It's not 20:20 when around the same time Valencia played behind closed doors, spanish football had gone behind closed doors, yet the uk government didn't make a call on thousands coming from Spain. The premier league only stopped when players were being diagnosed. Cheltenham festival going ahead was crazy.

I get they based it on science, but , and I think anyone can probably agree, they did get it wrong but not shutting those events down if not completely cancelling them.

I have no idea who any other party would have handled it, maybe the same, and if so, I would query that as well.

by McLaren Mon 30 Mar - 11:27

navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:Navy

Not sure I get what you are saying. Do you think reduced spending as a percentage of GDP on our healthcare system vs other western European countries is just my bias or did it really happen under austerity?

I said that, as a black/white argument, is simplistic. Yes, more money would have 'helped', but no-one would have been preparing for this, specifically. There wouldn't have been more vents or CPAP kit. It's academic anyway; we are where we are. What I hope is that once this is over, there's a re-think re. politics etc in this country; won't hold my breath though.

I was making the point that in general I consider it objective that the Tories austerity measures harmed the NHS, and that this is not just my biased thinking, rather than commenting on the current situation.

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:28

Soul Requiem wrote:
beninho wrote:Valencia and PSG were behind closed doors.
Leipzig wasn't, but probably should have been.

Not like there were thousands of fans congregating on the streets of Paris were there?

Still not good, but probably better then 50 odd thousand.

by Soul Requiem Mon 30 Mar - 11:30

beninho wrote:It was the government had a decision to make regards to large crowds, they didn't make the call. They should have, other countries did. It's not 20:20 when around the same time Valencia played behind closed doors, spanish football had gone behind closed doors, yet the uk government didn't make a call on thousands coming from Spain. The premier league only stopped when players were being diagnosed. Cheltenham festival going ahead was crazy.

I get they based it on science, but , and I think anyone can probably agree, they did get it wrong but not shutting those events down if not completely cancelling them.

I have no idea who any other party would have handled it, maybe the same, and if so, I would query that as well.

What does playing behind closed doors achieve when fans just congregate on the streets instead. So Spanish football went behind closed doors whilst at the same time they allowed thousands of fans to get on a plane to travel to watch football in a different, it would appear you're somewhat confused here.

You're basing this all on what is known now but not at the time.

by super_realist Mon 30 Mar - 11:33

McLaren wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
McLaren wrote:Navy

Not sure I get what you are saying. Do you think reduced spending as a percentage of GDP on our healthcare system vs other western European countries is just my bias or did it really happen under austerity?

I said that, as a black/white argument, is simplistic. Yes, more money would have 'helped', but no-one would have been preparing for this, specifically. There wouldn't have been more vents or CPAP kit. It's academic anyway; we are where we are. What I hope is that once this is over, there's a re-think re. politics etc in this country; won't hold my breath though.

I was making the point that in general I consider it objective that the Tories austerity measures harmed the NHS, and that this is not just my biased thinking, rather than commenting on the current situation.

There's two ways to look at it Mac. On one hand you could say that a decade of austerity has harmed the NHS and it has, on the other hand you could say that a decade of austerity has meant the country is in a better financial position to steer us through it.
It's more likely a combination of the two.

by beninho Mon 30 Mar - 11:36

At the time, Serie A had been postponed and other leagues across europe had banned fans. In this country we didn't. It pretty straightforward.

If, you think the same amount of fans go to a game they can't get into, then, in fact you are confused.

I'm pretty sure people questioned it at the time.

by super_realist Mon 30 Mar - 11:37

beninho wrote:At the time, Serie A had been postponed and other leagues across europe had banned fans. In this country we didn't. It pretty straightforward.

If, you think the same amount of fans go to a game they can't get into, then, in fact you are confused.

I'm pretty sure people questioned it at the time.

Why would anyone go to a game they couldn't get into?

by Sponsored content