Non: Chelsea: double jab or -ve test for home games.

I agree, I've always felt this is the gaping hole in the testing debate. Self-testing is a joke. Are you telling me that if you have purchased a ticket for some event your are going to select the Positive button when you register your test? "Oh dear I can't go now".
Regardless of the testing situation, I was shocked at how many people didn't even wear a mask at the Chelsea game this week. Seems like a relatively simple thing to do.

You’d have to be a special kind of cnut to self test positive and still go to a football ground.
 
SSee
Like Chelsea taking their own action re double vaccinations, our club could have done the same re masks as it is in a crowded area even though outside.

The best thing to do is get a medically tested mask that gives you very good protection and not just the other person protection, even if someone hasn’t got a mask near you.

They are normally recommended one time use.

Sky

Nearly all Britons are still wearing face masks in public places – ONS

Some 95% of people in Britain still wore face coverings while outside their homes last week, according to the Office for National Statistics.

And 89% of adults felt that wearing face masks to help stop the spread of COVID is either very important or important.

The findings are similar to those from the previous week's survey, conducted before most legal restrictions in England were eased on 19 July.

Face coverings are now no longer mandatory in shops and on most public transport in England, but the Government has said it "expects and recommends" that people continue to do so in crowded areas.
Seems odd that 95% still wearing masks but only 89% feel it is important. Statistics!
 
None.
You didn't even need a ticket in your name, just scanned it at the automated turnstile.
Depends if you agree with the second para below, I think this is all Chelsea are doing and all about opinions, but on this occasion I agree with Chelsea and Gove.


The Cabinet Office minister, Michael Gove, has said domestic Covid passports are “the right way to go” for some venues so “people can be confident that those who are attending those events are less likely to be carriers of the virus”, specifically referring to Premier League football matches.

He said that if businesses “required a certain level of safety” from customers, then people who refused to get vaccinated should not be surprised if they were “barred” – accusing them of “putting other people’s health and lives at risk” and calling them “selfish”.

The use of vaccine passports could also be introduced in football’s lower leagues as well as other sports in England in an attempt to reduce the spread of the virus following the end of restrictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-to-show-proof-of-covid-jabs-to-go-to-matches
This is incorrect. Fauci and the CDC have said that vaccinated individuals carry similar amount of viral load to unvaccinated . Covid passports are a sham and an affront to freedom. People are afraid more because of the nonsense they have been spoonfed in the press than the reality . It’s time to make a stand . Already Swiss newspapers are reporting lots of nasty side effects if vaccines, of which infertility seems likely .
 
This is incorrect. Fauci and the CDC have said that vaccinated individuals carry similar amount of viral load to unvaccinated . Covid passports are a sham and an affront to freedom. People are afraid more because of the nonsense they have been spoonfed in the press than the reality . It’s time to make a stand . Already Swiss newspapers are reporting lots of nasty side effects if vaccines, of which infertility seems likely .
Likely? How likely?
 
I turned up for my second jab with a cold and they wouldn't do it. Although I knew it was a cold the symptoms were also the same as covid. Sore throat, runny nose etc. The nurse consulted the doctor and he said to rebook when symptoms had cleared. Fine by me but I told him that the day before I had taken a lateral flow test to visit my mother in a care home and it had be returned as negative. He said that they are still learning the virus and as I was I'll after the first jab he wouldn't guess on how I'd be if my body had to fight the cold and the jab at the same time. Also, and more importantly I feel, he said the lateral flow test was very good at not finding covid in you but not so reliable at testing positive if you had covid. My wife had had covid a couple of weeks before so who knows. The point being we cannot be 100% certain that the person sat next to us is positive or negative whether they have been jabbed or tested. I sort of feel that we've just got to get on with things now
 
A fun exercise to understand your own personal risk of dying or being hospitalised from covid. You're welcome :)

https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation

My personal risk of contracting and dying from covid came in at an eye watering 0.0016%
 
A fun exercise to understand your own personal risk of dying or being hospitalised from covid. You're welcome :)

https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation

My personal risk of contracting and dying from covid came in at an eye watering 0.0016%

You realise that is just reverse engineering the stats back to a figure?

You're basically using the risk level heavily biased down by lockdowns to justify acting against the advice heavily supported by those who dedicate their lives to understanding this sort of stuff.
 
You realise that is just reverse engineering the stats back to a figure?

You're basically using the risk level heavily biased down by lockdowns to justify acting against the advice heavily supported by those who dedicate their lives to understanding this sort of stuff.
Do you think lockdowns have had an effect? There's a recent Stanford study that says otherwise.

So my risk is still miniscule, as is yours. I'm not sure why anyone would have a vaccine (who's not elderly or vulnerable) that's in a trial phase until 2023, with no liability from the ever trustworthy pharma manufacturers for a disease that poses no threat to your life.

And please don't quote the death toll. These are numbers that have been purposefully fluffed up (flu did not magically disappear last winter) by the PCR test; at 35-40 cycles you can literally find anything you want.

The ONS says 93% of the UK population now has antibodies. Isn't it time we just, you know, resumed play?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you think lockdowns have had an effect? There's a recent Stanford study that says otherwise.

So my risk is still miniscule, as is yours. I'm not sure why anyone would have a vaccine (who's not elderly or vulnerable) that's in a trial phase until 2023, with no liability from the ever trustworthy pharma manufacturers for a disease that poses no threat to your life.

And please don't quote the death toll. These are numbers that have been purposefully fluffed up (flu did not magically disappear last winter) by the PCR test; at 35-40 cycles you can literally find anything you want.

The ONS says 93% of the UK population now has antibodies. Isn't it time we just, you know, resumed play?

Oh dear, someone's getting their research from a Facebook group.

Also the ONS (95% confident of 90-93% of adults)
"It is not yet known how having detectable antibodies, now or at some time in the past, affects the chance of becoming infected or experiencing symptoms, as other parts of the immune system (T cell response) will offer protection. Antibody positivity is defined by a fixed amount of antibodies in the blood. A negative test result will occur if there are no antibodies or if antibody levels are too low to reach this threshold."

Look at excess deaths if you don't trust the official figures, explain them.

In additional why are the numbers fluffed up?

Who is in control of the entire world fluffing up death figures, faking test results and crashing the global economy?

Actually look at the process on how drugs are approved and you'll see a large chunk of time nothing is happening. Remove those and you can turn it around pretty quick as the UK (and others) did.

Do you find it strange that your trusted sources of information need to constantly change their position every month as it continually becomes untenable?

and do I think lockdowns have an effect? You tell me...1627883569094.png

1627883592084.png
1627883696095.png
 
Oh dear, someone's getting their research from a Facebook group.

Also the ONS (95% confident of 90-93% of adults)
"It is not yet known how having detectable antibodies, now or at some time in the past, affects the chance of becoming infected or experiencing symptoms, as other parts of the immune system (T cell response) will offer protection. Antibody positivity is defined by a fixed amount of antibodies in the blood. A negative test result will occur if there are no antibodies or if antibody levels are too low to reach this threshold."

Look at excess deaths if you don't trust the official figures, explain them.

In additional why are the numbers fluffed up?

Who is in control of the entire world fluffing up death figures, faking test results and crashing the global economy?

Actually look at the process on how drugs are approved and you'll see a large chunk of time nothing is happening. Remove those and you can turn it around pretty quick as the UK (and others) did.

Do you find it strange that your trusted sources of information need to constantly change their position every month as it continually becomes untenable?

and do I think lockdowns have an effect? You tell me...View attachment 6136

View attachment 6139
View attachment 6140
I'm not on Facebook. Also, I'm not being rude and none of my sources change their stance. They've been saying the same thing since March '20.

Maybe you think this is all normal, that's fine.

I would urge you to watch any video with Dr Pierre Kory and/or Dr Tess Lawrie though.
The suppression of an effective, safe and cheap medicine like Ivermectin should be a real cause for concern.
 
Do you think lockdowns have had an effect? There's a recent Stanford study that says otherwise.

So my risk is still miniscule, as is yours. I'm not sure why anyone would have a vaccine (who's not elderly or vulnerable) that's in a trial phase until 2023, with no liability from the ever trustworthy pharma manufacturers for a disease that poses no threat to your life.

And please don't quote the death toll. These are numbers that have been purposefully fluffed up (flu did not magically disappear last winter) by the PCR test; at 35-40 cycles you can literally find anything you want.

The ONS says 93% of the UK population now has antibodies. Isn't it time we just, you know, resumed play?
Please don’t quote figures I don’t like...
 
I'm not on Facebook. Also, I'm not being rude and none of my sources change their stance. They've been saying the same thing since March '20.

Maybe you think this is all normal, that's fine.

I would urge you to watch any video with Dr Pierre Kory and/or Dr Tess Lawrie though.
The suppression of an effective, safe and cheap medicine like Ivermectin should be a real cause for concern.

Sorry tone is hard to pick up on the internet. Just your post falls very comfortably into a pattern of behaviour I've seen elsewhere. Including referencing disgraced doctors flogging books.

This Ivermectin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Ivermecti
 
Sorry tone is hard to pick up on the internet. Just your post falls very comfortably into a pattern of behaviour I've seen elsewhere. Including referencing disgraced doctors flogging books.

This Ivermectin?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Ivermecti
Wikipedia is right up there with Facebook memes.

A good introduction to Tess Lawrie and Ivermectin.
I like John Campbell too – he seems very fair and balanced.

 

;