Jump to content

Yellow Fever

Members
  • Content Count

    3,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Yellow Fever last won the day on February 15

Yellow Fever had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

949 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Excellent rebuttal for SC. Every set of fraudsters needs their marks. I'm pretty amazed some are still too proud or stupid to admit this particular one to themselves.
  2. We've ascertained elsewhere he's quite delusional.. Bowie, Trump.... I suspect he actually lives in a care home hence got a jab etc.
  3. 538 I think are more in tune with my thinking. We'll all drop points - some unexpected and Swansea's 'largesse' with the refs cant last! 3rd place will be circa 85 points.
  4. 1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said: Lord David Frost, who negotiated the Brexit trade deal, has said Brussels must "shake off" any lasting "ill will" towards the UK for its decision to leave the European Union. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Lord Frost said it was important to "instead build a friendly relationship". His comments come after Prime Minster Boris Johnson unilaterally extended the grace period on Irish Sea border checks. As we are already unilaterally breaking the agreement we only signed up to at Christmas there can only be two possible explanations. 1. We never intended to keep our word and Frost, Johnson etc. are simply disingenuous gits. 2. They never understood the issues in the first place and are simply incompetents. My own view is that given the history of the Brexiteer arguments - both 1 and 2 are BOTH undoubtedly true.
  5. I take a simple view that 2 points/game is automatic promotion form. With typically 11 to 13 games left that is still a good a average guide. So Watford 66 + 22 = 88 Swansea 65 + 26 = 91 Brentford 63 + 24 = 87 As only 1 of these is likely to meet this average from here (2pts/game is auto promotion form) 87 or 88 points would be enough. 4 wins needed.
  6. It's not one for me to answer RTB but you - as I never thought the EU subs where large in comparison to our GBP and spending (they were in fact not much above the noise floor and could almost be lost in rounding errors) hence the 200 or 300Bn is manageable. Take a look at out annual pension bill alone. However, what we could of done to cut our overall Covid spending was to of locked down sooner, harder and basically not been so quick to unlock to rinse and repeat. If we'd got on top of it sooner, kept on top of it, we'd have had far less of an economic hit (and furlough and all the other expenses) and eventually come out of the other end quicker with a stronger economy. There are some good examples in Asia. As it is we have is the worst economic Covid performance of the major economies coupled with the one of the worst health outcomes. But then I'm not one for wishful mythical thinking. Anyway - back to the match.
  7. I can grasp your comparison fairy easily - just a means of putting he £300Bn Covid spending into perspective. Greater than all our net contributions (£226Bn) over 40+ years. If you thought our annual payments to the EU club (net) payments were humongous - then the Covid spending has to be totally suicidal and out of this world. Alternatively if the EU annual payments where relatively small payments in terms of GDP and on the whole economy then the Covid spending, although large is at least manageable. It seems the financial markets and indeed the government are in reality of the 2nd opinion.
  8. Exactly - If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's a team game and Vrancic is an important cog in that even if the goal radar is a bit awry at present. It will come. All I would do is bring in Cantwell (or substitute one for the other as the game develops) for Onel (he's done nothing wrong) and cameos for others as usual or if needed. We can truly experiment later once the job is done - not before !
  9. Testing most likely boosted by all the kids returning being tested. Lateral flow ones.
  10. Disagree there CW. It not jealousy of their position. For me it's the dismal demeaning soap opera that goes on and on and should have been cancelled years ago. The tittle-tattle and gossip, the divorces & scandals, the petty infighting. Fodder for red tops and the dimmest only. However - just to spike it up a bit - we often hear about them doing their 'duty' - as if it was an onerous undertaking that nobody else could be found willing to do. Would you want to bet ? I suspect many of us would quite like a life with no money worries and lots of deference and servants and able to indulge in any of our hobby whims in exchange for a bit glad handing. Duty my a r s e.
  11. Yes - I'm gob smacked at the political ineptness of it it. They are living on a different planet.
  12. Ron - I'm not trying to be difficult and I actually listened to all his 50 minute spiel. I actually as a rule investigate positions which are at face value contrary to mine. For the record anybody who actually reads my posts would see that I'm pretty much against the imposed burden upon the young by the old but at the same time want practical workable solutions. The problem I have with his 'anti-lockdown' view is simply that he provides no sensible workable public health alterative beyond accepting the significant deaths and mayhem that would inevitably follow as collateral damage to save our personal liberties to party. It's all hopelessly idealistic. Johnson has three times now tried the 'light touch' or deferring lockdowns and each time it has led to more unnecessary deaths, more economic loss and even harsher stricter and longer lockdowns that have been eventually forced upon him. Clearly he isn't going to rush into repeating it for a fourth time. So the anti-lockdown argument has already been tried and proved a political failure in the UK - it doesn't work. Lastly - as to being scared witless - I don't believe that one jot - some of course will be scared witless anyway whatever you do but most will get on with their lives best they can. Those that are scarred witless will be far far more scared if there was no lockdown or attempt to control the virus and they were told simply to take their chances in the street as per Sumption.
  13. My guess is not too many Tory donors or even voters amongst the NHS. Whilst it is true we can't have an open cheque book 1% is clearly derisory, an insult, given what they've been through. I'd say 5% for the nurses and lower front line grades. Freeze the triple lock pension to pay for it.
  14. This is pure pedantry. Let me join the dots for you. Yes the end result is to stop the virus (for the record the Covid CV19 virus) from overwhelming the hospitals with patients. The CV19 virus is a notifiable disease & originally had a mortality of > 1% and is also much more transmissive than seasonal flu. It has killed > 120,000 in the UK already and left large numbers with long term effects (5 % with diabetes etc.). It's not a disease we can let rip or be trifled with and as a society, indeed globally, we have decided to control. It also continues to mutate. None of this is in question. In order to stop people entering and overwhelming hospitals we need to stop them catching the virus in the first place. More recently we have better treatments and vaccines. However, after many previous failed attempts the lockdowns have proven to be the one sure way to quickly reduce prevalence and get under control. Hopefully the vaccines will keep it there. I'm very sure if the virus was pandemic flu - i.e. a a bird flu - which is what previous pandemic preparations assumed the next pandemic would be - it is very likely we'd be in exactly the same position of lockdown and quarantines as we ramped up our medical responses.
  15. The soap opera continues. It can't work in the social media age.
×
×
  • Create New...