The Importance of Jr. Hoilett

[frmr]

15 minutes ago, kacbru said:

No, it is not arguing about covid.  It is about a player making themselves ineligible to play in an important WCQ game.

Just to illustrate my point though, if Hoilett made himself unavailable because his wife was giving birth or a family member was dying, would there be five pages of people giving their opinions on his decision? No there would not. So yes, it is people arguing about covid because it’s a subject that polarizes people and everyone feels the need to weigh in on it, like their opinion matters. I’ve done it in the past but in this particular moment I’m getting on my high horse and condemning the lot of you, because I’m a hypocrite.

Carry on.

[rob.notenboom]

Well I’m not going to wade through whatever that was above … but if people have been speculating that Hoilett wouldn’t have to quarantine after returning from Mexico if he was vaxxed, I don’t believe that’s actually the case. What I’ve read is that anyone returning from a red list country has to quarantine for 11 days in the govt hotel for 2000£ or whatever the cost is. 
 

Now if that’s not what was being discussed, then my apologies. But if that *is* what was being discussed, and no one actually thought to look up the correct info (that even if Hoilett is fully vaxxed he would still have to quarantine upon return from Mexico … see below for confirmation) then perhaps others should offer some apologies. 
 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-travel-rules-are-changing-what-will-be-different-and-how-will-it-work-12422207
 

 

[jonovision]

3 hours ago, Obinna said:

My perspective (fwiw) is that person A who hasn't gotten vaccinated and hasn't gotten sick and hasn't been admitted to the hospital is not causing the hospital to fail. The reason is obvious, even if you don't like it or disagree with it.

Sure, that individual may become the problem one day down the road, since they may unecessarily (in the view of many) contribute to the problem of a failing medical system when they are admitted, but if that day doesn't come to pass there is no harm and no foul towards person A.

You could make the same "no harm no foul" argument with respect to drunk driving since an overwhelming majority of the time drunk drivers get home safe.

Morally, I'm not even sure I see a difference. 

[RS]

41 minutes ago, frmr said:

if Hoilett made himself unavailable because his wife was giving birth or a family member was dying, would there be five pages of people giving their opinions on his decision? No there would not.

Apples to oranges.

9 minutes ago, rob.notenboom said:

Well I’m not going to wade through whatever that was above … but if people have been speculating that Hoilett wouldn’t have to quarantine after returning from Mexico if he was vaxxed, I don’t believe that’s actually the case. What I’ve read is that anyone returning from a red list country has to quarantine for 11 days in the govt hotel for 2000£ or whatever the cost is. 
 

Now if that’s not what was being discussed, then my apologies. But if that *is* what was being discussed, and no one actually thought to look up the correct info (that even if Hoilett is fully vaxxed he would still have to quarantine upon return from Mexico … see below for confirmation) then perhaps others should offer some apologies. 
 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-travel-rules-are-changing-what-will-be-different-and-how-will-it-work-12422207
 

 

The rules for footballers are different, though.

From here:

Premier League players who are fully vaccinated will be allowed to travel to countries on the UK's red list during the international break and will be allowed to train or play when they quarantine on return, the government said on Friday.

[snip]

The strict COVID-19 quarantine rules require those who return to England from a red list country to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days, but players will now be quarantined at "bespoke facilities" and will be allowed to train or play.

[rob.notenboom]

1 minute ago, RS said:

Apples to oranges.

The rules for footballers are different, though.

From here:

The strict COVID-19 quarantine rules require those who return to England from a red list country to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days, but players will now be quarantined at "bespoke facilities" and will be allowed to train or play.

Ah I see. Interesting. 
 

Doesn’t really make sense that they’re ‘quarantining’ but still playing games since clearly that’s not quarantining at all. 
 

Where is that from?

[RS]

1 minute ago, rob.notenboom said:

Ah I see. Interesting. 
 

Doesn’t really make sense that they’re ‘quarantining’ but still playing games since clearly that’s not quarantining at all. 
 

Where is that from?

Reuters

[Cheeta]

34 minutes ago, frmr said:

Just to illustrate my point though, if Hoilett made himself unavailable because his wife was giving birth or a family member was dying, would there be five pages....

Don't think anyone here is holding anyone else in disdain for circumstances beyond their control.

For myself I'm simply grieving the man's decision to not make himself available for away matches in WCQing and the decision that Herdman will have to make with that knowledge.  I'd hoped we would/will see JR in WCQing and of course the Finals.

But the team comes 1st.  Continuity as much as is possible has to be a priority.

[frmr]

Just now, Cheeta said:

Don't think anyone here is holding anyone else in disdain for circumstances beyond their control.

For myself I'm simply grieving the man's decision to not make himself available for away matches in WCQing and the decision that Herdman will have to make with that knowledge.  I'd hoped we would/will see JR in WCQing and of course the Finals.

But the team comes 1st.  Continuity as much as is possible has to be a priority.

Pretty sure having a child is within your control.

[rob.notenboom]

2 minutes ago, RS said:

Reuters

Thanks. I’ll have a look. 

[RS]

Just now, rob.notenboom said:

Thanks. I’ll have a look. 

I linked to it in my post.

[rob.notenboom]

Just now, RS said:

I linked to it in my post.

Ah sorry. Long day. Half asleep. Found the article regardless (assuming it was the one Klopp was quoted in … not that his take is necessarily the correct one but he seems to think it’s still a terrible plan for players).

[Bison44]

58 minutes ago, frmr said:

Just to illustrate my point though, if Hoilett made himself unavailable because his wife was giving birth or a family member was dying, would there be five pages of people giving their opinions on his decision? No there would not. So yes, it is people arguing about covid because it’s a subject that polarizes people and everyone feels the need to weigh in on it, like their opinion matters. I’ve done it in the past but in this particular moment I’m getting on my high horse and condemning the lot of you, because I’m a hypocrite.

Carry on.

There has prob been at least that much on Arfields and his camp misses the last 4-5months.  And it always help when the usual suspect starts of procedings with a smart ass grenade launched into the forum, then he proceeds to sit back and laugh as we all argue about covid for 5 pages.  

[Cheeta]

2 minutes ago, frmr said:

Pretty sure having a child is within your control.

LOL.  Quite the stud.  Can sire a little one with an eye on the international calender. 

Bless you if you can, but even still children arrive on their own schedule.  This week, that week, two months early, two weeks late.  It happens when it happens, in its own time.

So yeah, out of their control.

 

 

[frmr]

46 minutes ago, Cheeta said:

LOL.  Quite the stud.  Can sire a little one with an eye on the international calender. 

Bless you if you can, but even still children arrive on their own schedule.  This week, that week, two months early, two weeks late.  It happens when it happens, in its own time.

So yeah, out of their control.

 

 

You shouldn’t be lying down with women nine months before a big game! 

[frattinator]

1 hour ago, frmr said:

Pretty sure having a child is within your control.

You should tell that to my friend, whose son decided to come out the morning of his PhD defense. He and his wife had everything planned out but I guess his kid decided to come out a week early because he didn’t want to miss his dad’s thesis defense. So he was in the hospital the entire night before coming straight to do his defense with zero sleep.
 

He passed. 

[Cheeta]

47 minutes ago, frmr said:

You shouldn’t be lying down with women nine months before a big game! 

The Hell you shouldn't.

[Obinna]

2 hours ago, jonovision said:

You could make the same "no harm no foul" argument with respect to drunk driving since an overwhelming majority of the time drunk drivers get home safe.

Morally, I'm not even sure I see a difference. 

That would be a great point except nobody drives drunk thinking driving sober is a greater risk to their safety. 

[CanadaFan123]

12 minutes ago, Obinna said:

That would be a great point except nobody drives drunk thinking driving sober is a greater risk to their safety. 

Sure, but the greater point is the mens rea and actus reus of the offence simply not existing.

To compare drunk driving to non vaccination requires the false assumption that a non vaccinated person has covid at all times. This isn’t the case. A drunk person driving is black and white - they are drunk and driving.

The only valid comparison @jonovisionwould be a person who knows they’re infected attending public settings and putting people at risk. That is a willful act. 

With all due respect, the comparison is almost as dumb as anti-Vaxxers comparing the unvaccinated to those wearing the yellow star. 

[Obinna]

18 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

Sure, but the greater point is the mens rea and actus reus of the offence simply not existing.

To compare drunk driving to non vaccination requires the false assumption that a non vaccinated person has covid at all times. This isn’t the case. A drunk person driving is black and white - they are drunk and driving.

The only valid comparison @jonovisionwould be a person who knows they’re infected attending public settings and putting people at risk. That is a willful act. 

With all due respect, the comparison is almost as dumb as anti-Vaxxers comparing the unvaccinated to those wearing the yellow star. 

Very true indeed.

[lenny]

 

9 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

"People are not idiots and selfish because they have the courage to stand up for what they believe in."

 

True.

They're idiots because they believe they Googled themselves Phds and overturned the medical consensus, but they can't even do grade school math.

Edited October 4, 2021 by lenny

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, lenny said:

 

True.

They're idiots because they believe they Googled themselves Phds and overturned the medical consensus, but they can't even do grade school math.

Stats  published in peer-reviewed medical journals (I realise some don't understand the concept) are showing that death rates amongst unvaccinated are anywhere from 10 to 16 times higher than amongst fully vaccinated, from what I have seen. Solid medical advice is founded partically on stats, which is why if you are going for chemotherapy or taking certain treatments the doctor will often explain risk of harm or death. I know of a person who lost eyesight  in one eye after a cataract operation--can happen, but  highly unlikely.

Stats can also be tricky, as our doctors have diagnosis stuck into their computers and some things don't come up. A cousin of mine was misdiagnosed and they missed Lyme Disease in BC because it is rare. And his doctor was incompetent, because he most definitely did not have Lou Gehrig's. So his life is screwed until death, because he caught something rare the system chose to ignore (this is being adjusted as we speak in BC diagnosis).

When you take outlying cases and try to make arguments based on them (my granny smoked like hell and lived to 93), you are laughing at basic statistical logic, which is one of the most solid grounds for public policy. Children are vaccinated at schools, mandatory, for these reasons. But you have to combine stats with outlying data to do solid medicine.

And stats are not human cases. A good friend of mine, in his 80s and fully vaccinated, but seriously weakened by years of cancer, died of Covid complications last week at VGH. A great man, I was with him a few days before he tested positive (I tested negative the same day, to fly back from Vancouver). So I understand that he is an outlier in the stats, he was one of the exceptions. The shits.

I respect that any individual has the right to decide for his own body, and the minors he is responsible for, but to a limit. It is always a case of individual vs collective responsibilities. But I do think it makes more sense to pick more relevant and meaningful things to have as your cause (like giving all your life's date free to social media so they can monetise it), and not pick something that even for a layperson is fairly understandable. Vaccination is really a simple brilliant concept, one of the greatest things to be conceived in medicine, along with washing hands before surgery, anaesthesia, painkillers, blood infusions, basic dentistry, anti-infection methods like antibiotics.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Unnamed Trialist

[Bertuzzi44]

Someone give me mod powers so I can clap this conversation

[El Hombre]

4 hours ago, Bertuzzi44 said:

Someone give me mod powers so I can clap this conversation

I just read through the whole thing and found it fascinating, particularly the notion that changing people's minds is possible. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

9 hours ago, El Hombre said:

I just read through the whole thing and found it fascinating, particularly the notion that changing people's minds is possible. 

Experience, whether personal, group, yours and others, is definitely a factor in changing people's minds. 

You start wearing a bike helmet when your cousin falls and hits her head cycling, and ends up with an blunt force aneuryism. But also because you have read, for years, that helmets help prevent head injuries in bike accidents.

So that could be why people make verbal and written arguments. Not to convince someone on the spot, not necessarily. That information, matched with an experience, then becomes a reason to change an opinion, and a practice. In fact one of the core ways of arguing is to make a point, and match it with an example. Or wait for the example to appear close at hand for whomever you are arguing with.

For example: you can argue til you are blue in your face that Eustaquio should not take free kicks, because he always puts them in short and we waste them; then he puts in a beautiful direct free kick and you change your mind. Partially. If someone argues he can do the directs but still shouldn't take the indirects, and you think they are wrong, you need a case--Junior doing better one match Stephen is not playing--to help be convinced. Fans spend hours and hours arguing over pints and pints why a coach won't respond to evidence staring him in the face that everyone can see except him.

It seems strong experiences for important issues do more to affect how people might change an opinion apparently set in stone. For minor issues, obviously there is less to win or lose, so you can just fly in the face of logic and who cares. A colleague at work insists on wearing the wrong ties--let him, he's offending basic good taste but it does not matter. But if we are talking about things that matter, like health (for most all), or CMNT results (for us supporters), then experiences often do end up justifying making the (however tedious) arguments in the first place.

I wrote this especially to make the tedious argument, when I should be doing something else. 

 

[frattinator]

10 hours ago, lenny said:

 

True.

They're idiots because they believe they Googled themselves Phds and overturned the medical consensus, but they can't even do grade school math.

I’m just saddened when I compare our response to the COVID vaccine to the last time the “collective we” reacted to a vaccine that was available for a widespread disease (polio). When the success of the polio vaccine was announced, people lined their kids up for the vaccine! There was widespread euphoria! Political leaders from the entire spectrum threw their support behind it (both the USSR and the US lauded the discoverers with medals and commendations). People didn’t say things like “I want to do my own research” or listen to contrarian grifters about how the real cure for polio is zinc and vitamin C. Of course there were people who didn’t want their kids to take it, but they were criticized and their opinions were dismissed as being on the fringe of society. People got their kids vaccinated both to protect them and as a matter of public duty, and public health officials never had to find ways to coerce citizens to do this (with that being said, polio vaccines were added as one of the mandatory childhood vaccines for access to public schools etc.). 
 

I wonder how much of it is COVID patients suffered in their own hospital rooms out of sight of public, while people saw first hand the paralyzed children on iron lungs (even if COVID is empirically more deadly than polio in the latter’s predominant era).

Edited October 4, 2021 by frattinator