RicoS321

I'm well aware of those anti vax groups and people like Andrew Wakefield being welcomed with open arms and wallets long before COVID. If we were both aware of them, then why wasn't the Californian state? I'm not filling in blanks or creating scenarios, I'm describing what actually happened. The anti vaccine groups got a foothold that wasn't previously accessible and launched their nonsense into the stratosphere. Exactly the same would have happened in Scotland had we taken the "unscientific" approach of California (in reality both approaches were unscientific, they were social measures). Instead, we actually had a very speedy and very high uptake of vaccines. My only minor criticism of Scotland's (the UK really) approach is that when it became very evident that the vaccine would never be enough to control the spread of the virus, that the advice should have changed to reflect the policy in all subsequent years of COVID vaccination (take it if you want, akin to the flu shot). There was, in my opinion, in most countries, an attempt to conflate taking the COVID vaccine with taking the measles vaccine (as an example). There was an implication (in fact it was stated on off the ball, no less, by Leitchy) that a form of herd immunity could be attained, that was clearly not tested nor validated by any research or subsequent evidence anywhere in the world.

There is no such thing as common sense. Most of our lives are just led by where we're willing to set out our boundaries. Mason thinks it was "common sense" (or scientific) to ban people's children from school, the Scottish government didn't, for example. Our responses to things are ultimately just an amalgamation of external influences. Your brother's cancer diagnosis has probably shaken him to the degree that he requires something to blame, or a reason for it. I can't imagine the trauma that that particular situation would cause, and its not irrational to find use in the irrational. Our lives are filled with irrational beliefs. Our economic system is predicated on infinite, exponential, growth for example. To the extent that very intelligent, professional, people argue over "the economy" and GDP, and are pressed on such matters without qualification by seemingly intelligent interviewers. All engaged in a game who's only purpose is the game itself. Every single person sent to [often meaningless] work to satiate it. That's not common sense, is it? Everyone I speak to thinks that plastic recycling is common sense, but I think it's an extremely destructive practice that actively harms the environment by design, and can never work. Who's common sense is correct? To me, the science around climate change is common sense, but the solutions presented to us as common sense are anything but, and are in themselves a form of denialism. The point I'm labouring is that seemingly "obvious", common sense policies and ideas surround us on a daily basis un-scrutinised, and often not even open for scrutiny. In such an environment, it's almost impossible for there not to be conspiracy theory and actual conspiracy. Everyone would have believed that there could be a trafficking ring at the very top of US society, but yet nobody believed it. At this point in our system's life, when it's creaking and visibly falling apart, it's anything but irrational to see conspiracy everywhere. It's a completely normal response. One person's vaccine conspiracy is another's trafficking or recycling conspiracy.

Then you are indeed as bad as those you criticise. Probably worse, as you attempt to maintain the moral high ground at the same time. My point, when saying: Is that by forcing people unnecessarily to get vaccinated, you create the conditions for extremist anti vaccine groups to thrive (which should have been very obvious to you if you were "years ahead of the curve on anti vax"). Similarly, if you lump people together - as you did - by calling them anti vaxxer, as opposed to anti COVID vaccine, you create the conditions for extremist anti vaccine groups to thrive. Thus, the response in California led directly to the predictable rise in anti vaccine shite. Because banning people's children from school was not "based on science", nor intelligent (hence why it didn't happen in Scotland and most other places who took a similar approach to COVID). Obviously, I think you're just generally at it, but your lack of middle ground and thoughtfulness makes you appear like a teenage activist. Or a troll. Or an idiot. I suspect neither are correct.

Just back. We weren't terrible. Cameron MOTM, and head in his hands in the 92nd minute as he knew immediately what he should have done (must be weird for a Hun not to automatically cheat). That's the worst Tim team I've seen in a long time. I'd say that they were there for the taking, but not when you have a cursory glance at our first eleven. That midfield is weak as piss. Geiger chasing shadows for a lot of it until he decided he'd had enough (although Shinnie never got up to speed when he came on either). Olusanya played well, apart from when he got the ball, but that's what we needed. Bilalovic was not only poor when he came on, but he also never did the work. Lazy was an understatement and it should be his last appearance for a while. Frame started poorly, but had a good game. Milne did well until he hurt himself with that random slip. Nilsen was good and Morrison was okay, with Molloy just being dependable mostly at the back. Armstrong fine but really needs to be playing further forward so it's easier to deal with his errors, especially towards the end when he was shattered. I'm fairly convinced that Hearts are winning the league after seeing that Tim team.

Then you didn't learn much from your experience of anti vaccine groups, did you? Any reason is a legitimate reason for not being vaccinated. I have a friend whose mum died after being injected prior to a routine operation. She was a fit and healthy under 50 year old who was absolutely terrified she would die being injected. The physical reasons might not be legitimate (and I would hugely disagree), but the social reasons most certainly are. The authoritarian approach of the Californian state officials would have been an absolute dream for the anti vax astroturfers, as you well know. I'm not asking you to have sympathy for @OrlandoDon's position (you should), I'm asking you whether you think preventing children from attending school was an intelligent response based on science?

But, by the same token, there isn't a one to one between being anti COVID vaccine and anti vaxxer. It's perfectly possible to question the efficacy of giving everyone a vaccine they don't necessarily need, that doesn't stand true when referring to measles, polio etc vaccine. It's also possible to note the different responses around the world and discuss where they were authoritarian or otherwise. Despite what you believe about adults not taking the COVID vaccine, do you genuinely believe that it was an appropriate response to prevent a person's children from attending school off the back of it (a position I could completely understand with something like measles)? Is that what the science suggested? Or was it a reach from politicians?

It's a good point. I don't believe that at that stage of the pandemic, the NHS capacity would have been an issue. Not any more of an issue than it has been in the subsequent years and post Brexit in general, where ambulances are regularly waiting hours. In other words, I don't think the primary factor would have been COVID. I say that because those at high risk, and above, say, sixty would likely have made exactly the same decision regardless. The numbers admitted not in those categories shouldn't have been enough to overwhelm anything, any more than it would now. We were still in lockdown when vaccines were on the go, which would have had a far greater impact on spread until those requiring most protection were done. Omicron followed shortly thereafter. I can't be the only one that was left wondering why on earth I was getting my third vaccine just to go to a Dons match, at a stage where it was very clear that it wasn't going to have anywhere near the required impact on spread.

Nice one thanks. I absolutely love a trip to a new ASDA, such beautiful buildings, so I'll likely opt for the last one. Looking forward to it.

I spoke a lot of sense while arguing over the incorrect point though! I think you're right about the lockdown. In terms of adults, my view is that it shouldn't have been as coercive as it was presented in the UK (Scotland, specifically in my case), and it would have been extremely damaging if it had been as authoritarian as @OrlandoDon experienced. I wouldn't present a case against vaccine efficacy, I'm merely critical of its enforcement. That, in my opinion, caused serious ongoing trust issues. There was never any possibility of containing the virus in the UK or US and the vaccination approach should have reflected that. It should have been approached in a similar vein to the flu shot, with a much greater emphasis on hygiene and staying away from others when symptomatic, with significant new measures brought in to force employers' hand on compliance, both then and now. As a fit and healthy adult, the risk to me from COVID is low (I've had it a couple of times, and a mysterious COVID like virus before it had even arrived in the UK apparently), and the biggest risk factor I could have posed was going out or to work, with symptoms, not "not being vaccinated", which in itself is rather meaningless in a country of wildly circulating infections. I'm not seeking to blame governments with hindsight, I completely accept that decisions were made in good faith, and that there was perhaps a certain catharsis, or finality, to being able to point to the symbol of X% population vaccinated, we can open up for business! It certainly provided something of an endpoint.

You turned down what? Not vaccinating your kids is one thing, but only an idiot would turn the chance to a free pizza and film.

My mistake, I thought it was because your kids weren't vaccinated. Although, I believe @Mason89 was arguing on that basis too!

A global pandemic that wasn't wiping out millions of children. Barely any children at all. It was extremely low risk. About as risky as putting them on a bike with a helmet. Of course, if you had a child with an underlying condition, then your risk profile would change significantly. Hence why only 2% of UK children got their three vaccines (98% playing with their children's lives in my opinion). Bottom line is, when it comes to children, if you've had yours vaccinated for COVID without underlying condition, you're likely in a minority. Edit: to remove paragraph not on point

Any advice on the best place to get parked coming from and back to the Aberdeen area? Been about 20 years since I've been.

Really? @OrlandoDon is from Scotland. Children in Scotland weren't being vaccinated. Why on earth would he assume that his children were more susceptible than those based in Scotland who were being told (correctly, IMO) that vaccination was not compulsory, and that children were at very low risk from COVID? Do you have kids? Were they vaccinated for COVID? Mine weren't. Because I'm perfectly capable of reading the various studies and weighing up the risk. Certain countries Australia and NZ from memory) had zero COVID policies, where infections were kept to a minimum via travel policies etc. It would, perhaps, make sense in those countries to pursue a zero COVID stance, with associated mass vaccination (I don't believe so, but that's only with hindsight). That approach was not taken in the UK and US, so the levels of vaccination required would never, ever have created the same scenario. You can't do some hybrid approach to immunity, it's illogical. Californian vaccine policy, I suspect, would be more to do with nudge politics as biological science.

Read what I wrote, and the context in which it was written. Forcing (for all intents and purposes) vaccination of school children for COVID was not based on rigorous science. Hence why it was not required in the UK. Vaccination of children for measles, for example, is based on rigorous science.

"Hello, my name is Elgin Don, and I love the pars. Could I purchase a ticket to see the pars this weekend please? I love Craig Brewster and Stevie Crawford. Until they joined those horrible reds from Aberdeen of course, I hate those guys. Neil Lennon is a wonderful man, who I have nothing but respect for."

I don't think the term anti vaxxer is helpful in any way whatsoever. I think it's created a situation where more people have become "anti all vaccinations", where they previously wouldn't have been. The COVID vaccine is not the same as a measles or polio vaccine, neither in makeup or utility. Whether you were vaccinated or not (I was), preventing children going to school for not taking a COVID vaccination is both authoritarian and unscientific. Creating that regime around vaccination has, in my opinion, needlessly created mistrust (which has obviously been significantly amplified via social media). If I had been forced into getting my children vaccinated, at the time, I would have been in the same position as @OrlandoDon. Conveniently wrapping everyone in the same "anti vaccine" parcel is ignorant, I believe.

Thank goodness, as a top red, I got in early.

It's not the pentagon though, is it? Dick Cheney wasn't the pentagon, neither the rest of the vulture capitalists. The guys who actually make money from these things, and buy guys like Trump and the absolute weirdo Hegseth. What's their angle?

What's the latest vibe in the US @OrlandoDon? I'm assuming they're in full computer game mode in the media? Treating it like a sports event and giving you the run down on all the different types of planes and bombs being used? Any word on what the actual plan is? It's a strange one, I have to say. I'm struggling to find any angle at all that makes sense of the attack. I don't mean from Trump, who's clearly an imbecile, but those that control him. What are their motives? Venezuela was a very good strategic move from a US perspective, and almost seamless in its execution. Iran just seems like a massive error, to an unbelievable degree (in other words, I'm clearly missing something). Iraq was held up as a catastrophe and an error, but it wasn't. In terms of power in the region, it made complete sense. In terms of sustaining high oil prices, it made sense. In terms of transfer of government funds (the US taxpayer) to the wealthy in military, clean-up and oil contracts (in Iraq) it made sense. It was a win for so few people at the expense of American soldiers. Iran is totally different. The only similarity I can see is that oil prices will remain high. The US have gone full in on regime change, whilst in negotiations, so the Iranians aren't going to come back to the table. That means the strait of Hormuz being shut in for months if not years. The US can't defend that across the entire Iranian coast. They also can't indefinitely defend the Saudis oil refineries from drones etc (probably only for a couple of weeks). They can't defend Israel from the multiple attacks they'll sustain either, and they're infrastructure is exceptionally volatile due to location and the fact that they're a highly developed westernised country. From the perspective of war being a racket, it makes little sense either. This is an aerial bombardment and the defence is also aerial (missiles against drones). The US doesn't have the capacity to replace its (the US and Israel) defence systems as quickly as they run dry. They needed a much more drawn out affair in order to keep the money flowing. Power wise, it just leaves a mess, but with Israel and Saudi significantly weaker. I don't get it. Again, not Trump, but those behind him.

It is worth arguing over. You're wrong. Very clearly.

Word of a DonsTalk XI being invited.

You're arguing against points I'm not making. I'm asking a fairly straightforward question of who in our team would get into theirs? I'm asking from the perspective of our own side.

Hearts have a better best starting eleven than us as a whole, and in every single position. I think. I'd like to hear who you think would get into their side from ours?

Agreed, we'll see where he is at the end of the season. It's almost always a case of better the devil you know, which is why managers tend to stick with known quantities, and I don't blame them. Imagine we'd kept McGrath for example? Shinnie has to be worth a new deal on those grounds alone. If Cameron does anything between now and the end of the season then he would also be worth a punt (at present, I'd not break the bank for him, he flatters to deceive a bit despite a lot of effort).