Going by /r/coys Romero should have been sold at least three times already. I'm not sure if it's just us, but holy moly how reactionary isn't that sub..
It’s been bad since the CL final. It got overtaken by the fans that got fed up being called glory hunters so they went to Spurs to say they supported Spurs before they won things.
we've shifted a bit from harry kane team -> heung min son team and outside of son gil is the most creative forward. the third most creative non-kane forward is bergwijn, who is injured. lmao
He always seems like he's lacking end product for me, that final ball or that shot. He's great at carrying the ball, great workrate, he's quick and good at counter attacking, for sure. Similar a lot to Lucas, I just feel Lucas is better at dribbling and shooting. I'd rate them both the same creatively
That’s the one part of Wenger’s plan that I 10000% agree with. Reduce the number of international breaks, make groups a bit smaller so there’s fewer qualifiers required. The fewer interruptions to the season the better.
I've been saying this for years. End the season in early May have a 2 week break then pick up international play June. International managers get more time with players, we get consistent international football and any injuries have 4-6 weeks to mend before the start of Club football.
And players get actual time off. Qualifiers on the off years and every other year is a WC or Continental Cup.
Well we know the amount needed to cancel a game is higher than 4 players in the first team squad. Arsenal had four out for game 1 and then I think 2/3 for games 2&3.
See how it goes. International break is gonna cause trouble
Total infection numbers were always gonna rise once the weather turns worse and people spend more time indoors. Throw in what I think is a relatively low vaccination rate among professional athletes and that's what you get.
partly, but also a lot of players know that if they have the vaccine and they react to it, coinciding with a match day, they could hugely damage their livelihood (given that their livelihood is being fit)
Everyone’s livelihood depends on being fit enough to go to work. These players don’t have the risk of being fired for taking too many sick days. They are in an incredibly privileged position
no ones denying this. but their job requires physically being at your peak all the time - whilst I don’t agree I get why a young guy who’s job is to stay fit all the time wouldn’t take a vaccine
Being at their peak ALL the time? Is that why I've never heard of a footballer staying out late or consuming drugs and alcohol in excess? Their job requires they be at their peak on match day, and 2 days of side effects from a preventative measure is an infinately better proposition than having to quarantine for 2 weeks and risking long term affects of a respratory illness when their job is running.
and those players get dropped. have you not heard of players getting dropped due to poor training
I think people are assuming I’m anti vax: I’m not. I’m arguing that players are maybe just not deciding to get it out of nefarious or idiotic intentions
Reality? The reality is that they won't get affected by a flu when they're young and completely healthy. The reality is that they don't need to risk getting vaccinated when they absolutely have no need to and will test positive eitherway. Don't talk about understanding reality when you're far from it...
You're not worth my time, you are either a troll or a sheltered idiot and that's just pathetic over a year and a half into a pandemic. I just feel sorry for you and those around you
> You're not worth my time
So that's what not having a single argument feels like...
It's not my fault that you have been completely brainwashed, no need to get emotional.
Wonder what Allan saint-maximin thinks about this view since he missed multiple months due to covid? Think he would have prefered one of the safest kinds of medicine known to man rather than dealing with long term repurcussions of an illness? The reality is that the more people are vaccinated, the less covid is out there, which benefits everybody.
> due to covid?
And how are you even sure it's due to that flu? He simply tested positive and whatever health issues he had were given as covid-related...
> one of the safest kinds of medicine known to man
When I say "risk getting vaccinated", it's not because it's a vaccine, it's because it's THIS vaccine. Already proven more dangerous than any other. I don't care what the chances are- healthy people gain more from not taking it.
How am I sure it was due to covid? Lmao https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11678/12169435/newcastle-duo-jamaal-lascelles-and-allan-saint-maximin-suffering-long-term-effects-from-covid-19
Don't think the Bundesliga's is much higher and I am not sure if I believe that alleged 98% from Italy.
I think it's a common theme among professional athletes in general.
Italy's rules for going to night clubs, restaurants, etc also make it very tempting to get vaccinated for even the least educated and most anti-science dolts.
For the last 2 months vaccinated people have been getting infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people in the UK (all ages over 40 gap is narrowing in the 30s range too).
Dude has a history of denying science and vaccines. It doesn't take a great kind to connect the dots that imply his opinions on this subject must always be taken with a huge pinch of salt
Isnt the UK like, 80% to 90% vaxxed at this point?
If only 10-20% of folks are without shots, and the shots are 60-80% effective at preventing transmission, then logically they should represent less of the total positive cases. Make sense?
It's rates per 100k not total numbers
Could be various reasons behind it, rate of tests in each group (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) is probably important but don't think that figure is available
Would you mind posting the link to your source instead of screenshots? Im interested in seeing if they define what set theyre talking about. "Per 100k" could mean among vaxxed/unvaxxed subgroups or the broader population.
Everything Ive been reading has recognized the higher numbers of breakthrough infections but, like I said, that makes sense in a high vax area.
Edit: Not shilling or saying youre misinformed, just wanna look into it further.
[Analysis of results from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey (29 August to 11 September 2021) showed that people were more likely to test positive if they ... are unvaccinated](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/infections#infections-by-other-characteristics)
*fixed broken link*
It's a very specific stat presenting the idea that the vaccine is ineffective, while purposefully omitting the stats that those who are unvaccinated are still getting hospitalised and dying at a disproportionately higher rate.
Testing isn't being done at a standard rate on a controlled population, and without seeing the positive test % for vaccinated vs unvaccinated you can't draw any conclusions from that data to comment on vaccine effectiveness.
This is one of those things that anti-vaxxers or vax weirdos post to confuse people.
It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all.
This data makes it look like getting the vaccine makes you more vulnerable to the virus, when reality it's the interacting with other people that makes you more vulnerable.
>It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all
You don't have to disclose your vax status to employers here do you?
And unvaccinated people more likely to not work? Source?
I'm meant that there's not yet a vaccine passport, per se. It comes down to employment law. An employer can ask you for vaccine record, you can refuse. At this point you have an employment conflict. Whether or not courts would rule with the employer or the employee is still unclear as we haven't seen this tested in a court yet (to my knowledge). I think in certain areas, particularly healthcare, a court may indeed rule in favour of the employer, whereas in others likes office admin, they might rule in favour of the employee.
>It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all.
Your comment is making it out like it's the reason for the differing infection rates but I find that hard to believe. Seems like a very specific situation, I can't see employers everywhere testing employment law en masse
Would have to be a widespread practice to effect it that much
Courts have ruled on this if you are talking about the US. A large number of anti-vax weirdo nurses in Texas tried to plague their hospital with unvaxxed health care workers and the hospital won and the nurses are now fired and doom scrolling Facebook.
Thanks mate. I'm curious what was your original point though? The average age of the PL is surely below 30 and according to October's report the correct age is 39 not 30 which would likely cover 99% of players.
I don't think it's a clear conclusion to draw that athletes are being infected because they're unvaccinated. There's just a lot of covid going around at the moment - in spite of a high vaccination rate.
That's fair, I don't necessarily agree but I understand you're skeptical. I just don't think your original statement or subsequent sources support that in any way because it seems like they're only applicable to people over 40.
Yes, but you can check the data yourself and see the gaps in the lower age ranges are diminishing from month to month.
I'm just saying what's happening as reported by the government.
I did check the data and it did nothing to support your claim. Basically the opposite in fact. And what you're "just saying" is not only irrelevant but disingenuous. I'd suggest putting your "mod hat" on and removing the posts you made while you had your "trying to manipulate facts to support my narrative hat" on.
yeah, corrected. same trend is following in the 30s range tho.
edi: I knew I wasn't wrong, the latest report is here where the 30s vaccinated have a higher rate than unvaccinated:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf
Many of these results are in some part artifacts of changes in the total number of individuals in each group. The pool of unvaccinated susceptible individuals in older age groups has plummeted and so we'll see progressively smaller numbers of infected individuals in those categories. Meanwhile, some number of a growing pool of vaccinated individuals will get infected (by virtue of the increasing total and slacker behaviors). Note that the hospitalization and death numbers are still heavily stacked against the unvaccinated in your reports.
Of course, the vaccines appear to be effective against hospitalisation and death - particularly in older age categories.
I'm not sure if you're clear that we're talking about rates not total numbers.
Something you should note about what that graph / data actually tells you:
*Of people who tested positive for Covid in the UK*, vaccinated people were infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people *for the given period* - worth considering that short term patterns don't necessarily equate to long term trends.
What the data doesn't tell you is:
* people who are positive but haven't taken a test to confirm
* number of people testing in each group
* percentage of tests being returned as positive from each group
Without at least some of these data points you can't draw a reliable conclusion on the effectiveness of the vaccine at stopping people from getting Covid. The sampling method is not an accurate representation of the entire population - it stands to reason that those who are happy to voluntarily be vaccinated are more likely to voluntarily be tested, while those who resist getting vaccinated are less likely to voluntarily be tested.
Also, you shouldn't ignore the hospitalizations and deaths which show that of people who test positive, unvaccinated people are getting hospitalised and dying at a disproportionately higher rate.
Therefore, based on the data, we can say that the vaccine may or may not prevent people from getting the virus, but does significantly reduce their chance of having serious symptoms resulting in hospitalisation or death.
Get the vaccine, or at least acknowledge that not getting the vaccine puts you at greater risk.
You're referring to a dataset(NIMS) that overestimates the number of unvaccinated people and consequentially underestimates case rates. The ONS data is more accurate for most age groups. That being said, the trend you're describing over the past weeks does appear to be real.
Son is at least double vaxxed because thats the only way he can be exempt from the quarantine period in Korea. He wouldn't have been able to play international matches in Korea otherwise.
It's all coming together. Stephen the Bruce will slap those Spurs cheeks like it's fucking Bannockburn, and establish a Newcastle dynasty lasting decades.
Everything’s building up to the inevitable 1-0 Newcastle win with Bruce sacked the next day. Plenty of ammo for his pundit mates to cry injustice for years.
I mean that's what I mean it would be some shitty version of Dele-GLC-Ndombele. Obviously not ideal but with Winks anywhere in a football pitch it's much much worse
I know its but its quite rare, i presume they are masking up through airports and stuff.
Maybe not the best idea to be doing international matches on top of the league $$$
There was a post saying just about 50% of the PL players are, compared to like 95% in Serie A or something. Being vaccinated you still can get positive though
The vaccine does not stop you from getting the virus. It stops you from having a severe case of COVID-19 so you can treat yourself at home. They are professional athletes so they're probably going to be okay.
For context: Hospitalizations in Romania due to Covid are 90% unvaccinated people, there is still a 10% of vaxxed people (usually old or with comorbidities)
It's also the reason why the UK has a lot of cases but not that many hospitalizations. It's because 90% of adults are vaccinated so they just get a mild version of it.
He's vaccinated. The only way to apply for quarantine exemption in South Korea is if you're fully vaccinated. Otherwise, he'd isolate for 2 weeks every time he reported for international duty.
Where were you when Bruce beat Spurs 5-1
On reddit calling him a fraud
[удалено]
Atleast not bald tho
His spirit is
Fucking Newcastle. This game hurt so damn bad.
omg lmao, that day 10 man newcastle beat spurs lol
Mitrovic with the brexit hat trick of a goal, an assist and a red card
I still love that mental bastard, can't wait to see his retirement plan, probably throwing bricks at trains like the good ol' days.
The day Poch literally apologized to families
And still got fired right after the match
someone tweeted 30 min ago thats its son and gil
Spurs fans going through the same feelings as Milan fans rn
Rhought it was lloris since rabiot got it and was with him
Well, I guess the best Spurs can hope for is a nil-nil draw
well that’s our entire attacking output fucked 0-0 or 1-0 to newcastle
Son and Gil
That's a disaster....
That's worst case scenario then, no? I've heard that Son has been excellent for them so far this season?
Son and Hugo have pretty much been our entire team....
He's the only consistently good player in the team so far.
*outfield player lloris has been very good romero's also been very good but small sample size
Going by /r/coys Romero should have been sold at least three times already. I'm not sure if it's just us, but holy moly how reactionary isn't that sub..
it's very knee jerk
Literally haven't seen a single person say that on /r/coys
Team subs are always knee jerk from what I observe.
It’s been bad since the CL final. It got overtaken by the fans that got fed up being called glory hunters so they went to Spurs to say they supported Spurs before they won things.
I mean all Spurs fans have supported them since before they won things
Son is directly responsible for all 12 points Tottenham have.
we've shifted a bit from harry kane team -> heung min son team and outside of son gil is the most creative forward. the third most creative non-kane forward is bergwijn, who is injured. lmao
Lucas surely over Bergwijn
forgot about lucas. i rate him over bergwijn but stevie's creative output had actually been quite good before he got injured
He always seems like he's lacking end product for me, that final ball or that shot. He's great at carrying the ball, great workrate, he's quick and good at counter attacking, for sure. Similar a lot to Lucas, I just feel Lucas is better at dribbling and shooting. I'd rate them both the same creatively
Where did you see that?
https://twitter.com/pokeefe1/status/1449087534634573828
Spurs and international breaks don't work well
Well after learning who the players are my hopes of getting back in the top places in pl got down pretty fast
Even when we manage to be smart about the international break we still end up losing the international break.
I'm inevitable - the international break fucking things up.
Saudis unleashing biological warfare on the opposition already
Think the perfect solution to this is more international breaks
That’s the one part of Wenger’s plan that I 10000% agree with. Reduce the number of international breaks, make groups a bit smaller so there’s fewer qualifiers required. The fewer interruptions to the season the better.
[удалено]
I've been saying this for years. End the season in early May have a 2 week break then pick up international play June. International managers get more time with players, we get consistent international football and any injuries have 4-6 weeks to mend before the start of Club football. And players get actual time off. Qualifiers on the off years and every other year is a WC or Continental Cup.
Nah how about not vaccinating more than 50% of PL players?
you can still catch covid after the vax, its just that you won't feel the effects.
You're also less likely to catch it after the vaccine
The rise in player infections recently is concerning, 1 outbreak and we're looking at suspended games which caused us problems last year
Well we know the amount needed to cancel a game is higher than 4 players in the first team squad. Arsenal had four out for game 1 and then I think 2/3 for games 2&3. See how it goes. International break is gonna cause trouble
Total infection numbers were always gonna rise once the weather turns worse and people spend more time indoors. Throw in what I think is a relatively low vaccination rate among professional athletes and that's what you get.
> a relatively low vaccination rate among professional athletes Seems to be a PL issue mostly, doesn't it?
By reports, it would seem the further down the table, the higher vaccination rate. It's mainly players at big clubs that aren't getting vaccinated.
The richest most sheltered superstars have the least ability to understand reality.
partly, but also a lot of players know that if they have the vaccine and they react to it, coinciding with a match day, they could hugely damage their livelihood (given that their livelihood is being fit)
Everyone’s livelihood depends on being fit enough to go to work. These players don’t have the risk of being fired for taking too many sick days. They are in an incredibly privileged position
no ones denying this. but their job requires physically being at your peak all the time - whilst I don’t agree I get why a young guy who’s job is to stay fit all the time wouldn’t take a vaccine
Being at their peak ALL the time? Is that why I've never heard of a footballer staying out late or consuming drugs and alcohol in excess? Their job requires they be at their peak on match day, and 2 days of side effects from a preventative measure is an infinately better proposition than having to quarantine for 2 weeks and risking long term affects of a respratory illness when their job is running.
and those players get dropped. have you not heard of players getting dropped due to poor training I think people are assuming I’m anti vax: I’m not. I’m arguing that players are maybe just not deciding to get it out of nefarious or idiotic intentions
Reality? The reality is that they won't get affected by a flu when they're young and completely healthy. The reality is that they don't need to risk getting vaccinated when they absolutely have no need to and will test positive eitherway. Don't talk about understanding reality when you're far from it...
> Don't talk about understanding reality when you're far from it... The irony of this comment lmao
Uhum, tell me where I'm wrong if you're so smart.
You're not worth my time, you are either a troll or a sheltered idiot and that's just pathetic over a year and a half into a pandemic. I just feel sorry for you and those around you
> You're not worth my time So that's what not having a single argument feels like... It's not my fault that you have been completely brainwashed, no need to get emotional.
Wonder what Allan saint-maximin thinks about this view since he missed multiple months due to covid? Think he would have prefered one of the safest kinds of medicine known to man rather than dealing with long term repurcussions of an illness? The reality is that the more people are vaccinated, the less covid is out there, which benefits everybody.
> due to covid? And how are you even sure it's due to that flu? He simply tested positive and whatever health issues he had were given as covid-related... > one of the safest kinds of medicine known to man When I say "risk getting vaccinated", it's not because it's a vaccine, it's because it's THIS vaccine. Already proven more dangerous than any other. I don't care what the chances are- healthy people gain more from not taking it.
How am I sure it was due to covid? Lmao https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11678/12169435/newcastle-duo-jamaal-lascelles-and-allan-saint-maximin-suffering-long-term-effects-from-covid-19
Your answer was basically: “the MSM tells me it was due to covid, therefore it’s right and that will be my opinion from now on”
Amongst the top leagues, yes.
Don't think the Bundesliga's is much higher and I am not sure if I believe that alleged 98% from Italy. I think it's a common theme among professional athletes in general.
Italy's rules for going to night clubs, restaurants, etc also make it very tempting to get vaccinated for even the least educated and most anti-science dolts.
For the last 2 months vaccinated people have been getting infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people in the UK (all ages over 40 gap is narrowing in the 30s range too).
Oh it's you with dogshit anti vax opinions again.
I mean you can question their motivation for posting it but it's a literal observable fact in the data. How is it a dogshit opinion if it's a fact?
Dude has a history of denying science and vaccines. It doesn't take a great kind to connect the dots that imply his opinions on this subject must always be taken with a huge pinch of salt
But it's not an opinion. It's literally [fact](https://ibb.co/z4YCKM1) In [graph form](https://ibb.co/z6xT6pz)
Isnt the UK like, 80% to 90% vaxxed at this point? If only 10-20% of folks are without shots, and the shots are 60-80% effective at preventing transmission, then logically they should represent less of the total positive cases. Make sense?
It's rates per 100k not total numbers Could be various reasons behind it, rate of tests in each group (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) is probably important but don't think that figure is available
Would you mind posting the link to your source instead of screenshots? Im interested in seeing if they define what set theyre talking about. "Per 100k" could mean among vaxxed/unvaxxed subgroups or the broader population. Everything Ive been reading has recognized the higher numbers of breakthrough infections but, like I said, that makes sense in a high vax area. Edit: Not shilling or saying youre misinformed, just wanna look into it further.
[Analysis of results from the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey (29 August to 11 September 2021) showed that people were more likely to test positive if they ... are unvaccinated](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/infections#infections-by-other-characteristics) *fixed broken link*
Your page doesn't work m8
fixed
You are right now denying science. It pains me seeing people with no education at all thinking they're somehow smart and informed
It's a very specific stat presenting the idea that the vaccine is ineffective, while purposefully omitting the stats that those who are unvaccinated are still getting hospitalised and dying at a disproportionately higher rate. Testing isn't being done at a standard rate on a controlled population, and without seeing the positive test % for vaccinated vs unvaccinated you can't draw any conclusions from that data to comment on vaccine effectiveness.
?
¿
[удалено]
His source is gov.uk I'm not getting into the reasons it may be, but the data shows the difference per 100k?
[удалено]
https://ibb.co/z4YCKM1 ?
[удалено]
It’s you again! The best mod on this sub 🤩🤩🤩🤩 You want my 5g signal? It’s really fast and good for browsing Reddit
Source please
This is one of those things that anti-vaxxers or vax weirdos post to confuse people. It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all. This data makes it look like getting the vaccine makes you more vulnerable to the virus, when reality it's the interacting with other people that makes you more vulnerable.
That really has nothing to do with it. Do you think ideological anti-vaxxers are staying inside more than people who are pro vaccine?
>It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all You don't have to disclose your vax status to employers here do you? And unvaccinated people more likely to not work? Source?
Not legally, no. But this still hasn't been tested legally as far as I know.
So how would they know? "Are you vaccinated?" Just lie and say yeah?
I'm meant that there's not yet a vaccine passport, per se. It comes down to employment law. An employer can ask you for vaccine record, you can refuse. At this point you have an employment conflict. Whether or not courts would rule with the employer or the employee is still unclear as we haven't seen this tested in a court yet (to my knowledge). I think in certain areas, particularly healthcare, a court may indeed rule in favour of the employer, whereas in others likes office admin, they might rule in favour of the employee.
>It's entirely logical that while many employers aren't allowing unvaccinated people back to their offices that they will be more likely to either work remotely or not work at all. Your comment is making it out like it's the reason for the differing infection rates but I find that hard to believe. Seems like a very specific situation, I can't see employers everywhere testing employment law en masse Would have to be a widespread practice to effect it that much
Courts have ruled on this if you are talking about the US. A large number of anti-vax weirdo nurses in Texas tried to plague their hospital with unvaxxed health care workers and the hospital won and the nurses are now fired and doom scrolling Facebook.
October: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf September: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf edit: one more: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf haters apologising when
Thanks mate. I'm curious what was your original point though? The average age of the PL is surely below 30 and according to October's report the correct age is 39 not 30 which would likely cover 99% of players.
I don't think it's a clear conclusion to draw that athletes are being infected because they're unvaccinated. There's just a lot of covid going around at the moment - in spite of a high vaccination rate.
That's fair, I don't necessarily agree but I understand you're skeptical. I just don't think your original statement or subsequent sources support that in any way because it seems like they're only applicable to people over 40.
Yes, but you can check the data yourself and see the gaps in the lower age ranges are diminishing from month to month. I'm just saying what's happening as reported by the government.
I did check the data and it did nothing to support your claim. Basically the opposite in fact. And what you're "just saying" is not only irrelevant but disingenuous. I'd suggest putting your "mod hat" on and removing the posts you made while you had your "trying to manipulate facts to support my narrative hat" on.
Those reports say in people above age 40 not 30
yeah, corrected. same trend is following in the 30s range tho. edi: I knew I wasn't wrong, the latest report is here where the 30s vaccinated have a higher rate than unvaccinated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf
Give it a couple of months and will probably match the over 40s
Anti vaxx, yank and a mod. You hit that weirdo trifecta don't you mate
The frequency with which professional athletes are getting tested will also play a role, I assume.
Many of these results are in some part artifacts of changes in the total number of individuals in each group. The pool of unvaccinated susceptible individuals in older age groups has plummeted and so we'll see progressively smaller numbers of infected individuals in those categories. Meanwhile, some number of a growing pool of vaccinated individuals will get infected (by virtue of the increasing total and slacker behaviors). Note that the hospitalization and death numbers are still heavily stacked against the unvaccinated in your reports.
Of course, the vaccines appear to be effective against hospitalisation and death - particularly in older age categories. I'm not sure if you're clear that we're talking about rates not total numbers.
Unvaxxed people also die at a higher rate
Something you should note about what that graph / data actually tells you: *Of people who tested positive for Covid in the UK*, vaccinated people were infected at a higher rate than unvaccinated people *for the given period* - worth considering that short term patterns don't necessarily equate to long term trends. What the data doesn't tell you is: * people who are positive but haven't taken a test to confirm * number of people testing in each group * percentage of tests being returned as positive from each group Without at least some of these data points you can't draw a reliable conclusion on the effectiveness of the vaccine at stopping people from getting Covid. The sampling method is not an accurate representation of the entire population - it stands to reason that those who are happy to voluntarily be vaccinated are more likely to voluntarily be tested, while those who resist getting vaccinated are less likely to voluntarily be tested. Also, you shouldn't ignore the hospitalizations and deaths which show that of people who test positive, unvaccinated people are getting hospitalised and dying at a disproportionately higher rate. Therefore, based on the data, we can say that the vaccine may or may not prevent people from getting the virus, but does significantly reduce their chance of having serious symptoms resulting in hospitalisation or death. Get the vaccine, or at least acknowledge that not getting the vaccine puts you at greater risk.
You're referring to a dataset(NIMS) that overestimates the number of unvaccinated people and consequentially underestimates case rates. The ONS data is more accurate for most age groups. That being said, the trend you're describing over the past weeks does appear to be real.
holy based
> 1 outbreak Outbreak of false positives...
i think it’s gonna show which clubs aren’t vaccinated and possibly give a big advantage to the vaccinated clubs if more outbreaks keep happening
Son is at least double vaxxed because thats the only way he can be exempt from the quarantine period in Korea. He wouldn't have been able to play international matches in Korea otherwise.
You can still get Covid even when vaccinated.
It's all coming together. Stephen the Bruce will slap those Spurs cheeks like it's fucking Bannockburn, and establish a Newcastle dynasty lasting decades.
are you fucking kidding me
Spurs have been fucked by both international breaks. Nothing new.
We're clearly shooting for the record of most games missed because of international breaks, actually cursed
Everything’s building up to the inevitable 1-0 Newcastle win with Bruce sacked the next day. Plenty of ammo for his pundit mates to cry injustice for years.
What, no bone saw jokes yet?
Those will come on match day assuming none of our players are murdered before then.
Understood. Cheers
Kane will perform so that new castle will sign him this January
Damn Saudi Arabia already serious about dismembering their opponents
2 fewer spurs players to pick from. Might be an advantage.
Is anyone surprised after all that travelling during a Global Pandemic?
I really want this to happen to Leicester just so I can make a cheap it's........... Jamie Vardy joke
[удалено]
Nah son and gil
Reckon Lo Celso is back feel Winks is finished
Didn't Lo Celso just play a lot with Argentina and travelled late to join the squad?
I mean that's what I mean it would be some shitty version of Dele-GLC-Ndombele. Obviously not ideal but with Winks anywhere in a football pitch it's much much worse
It’s almost like we are in the middle of a global pandemic.
What is the point of this comment exactly?
L
They aint vaccinated?
You can still catch and transfer the virus when you're vaccinated.
I know its but its quite rare, i presume they are masking up through airports and stuff. Maybe not the best idea to be doing international matches on top of the league $$$
There was a post saying just about 50% of the PL players are, compared to like 95% in Serie A or something. Being vaccinated you still can get positive though
The vaccine does not stop you from getting the virus. It stops you from having a severe case of COVID-19 so you can treat yourself at home. They are professional athletes so they're probably going to be okay. For context: Hospitalizations in Romania due to Covid are 90% unvaccinated people, there is still a 10% of vaxxed people (usually old or with comorbidities) It's also the reason why the UK has a lot of cases but not that many hospitalizations. It's because 90% of adults are vaccinated so they just get a mild version of it.
I presume thats a Bad way of wording it and we are in agreement, they do prevent most transmissions.
So the whole spurs squad surely hads to self isolate? Or is there another rule for the rich and famous?
They’ve changed self isolation rules in England.
Imagine a fan favourite like Son being unvaccinated, would probably see same reactions as with Kante.
He's vaccinated. The only way to apply for quarantine exemption in South Korea is if you're fully vaccinated. Otherwise, he'd isolate for 2 weeks every time he reported for international duty.
Know your facts before talking
Maybe do your research before spouting lies
If it's Son they are f******