- This topic has 89 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
No great loss . . . . . Chester is just a glorified pub / nightclub full of pissed up Scousers, the overwhelming majority of whom couldn’t give a toss about the racing …… I’ve always maintained they could race three legged donkeys there and most of the attendees would be none the wiser.
It’s also the most expensive racecourse in the country and with the ridiculous draw bias it’s a total abomination of a racecourse.
I used to hate going there and I certainly would shed no tears if it went bust and closed down.
Is 42,000 deaths really a big deal?
70,000 people a year die from dementia in the UK annually, 165,000 die from cancer and 42,000 under 75’s die of heart disease every year ….. so putting it in perspective it could be argued 42,000 Covid deaths is no big deal and certainly not worth trashing the economy for
Between 12,000 and 28,000 die of ‘flu each year depending on how bad the season is so Covid is only twice as bad as a bad ‘flu year.
Also pandemics have been a recurrent theme throughout history, the Antonine Plague between 165-180 AD killed an estimated 5 million and many say it led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Bubonic Plague killed 200 million and closer to us time wise Spanish ‘Flu killed 40-50 million.
Therefore it could be argued there has been a gross over reaction worldwide to the pandemic, with modern travel viruses are going to travel the world more easily, that’s the price of “progress”
Is destroying the economy the right price to pay?
What number of deaths would be deemed acceptable – it’s a very debatable point, I would consider 42,000 relatively low. Personally I wouldn’t even fret if the UK death toll reached 250,000.
At the end of the day every one of us is going to die – does it really matter if it happens today, tomorrow or many years or decades in the future?
People get too hung up by their own mortality.
Fine, try and find a vaccine, find treatments but don’t cause more problems by bringing in restrictions, many of which have no proven benefit.
Let people make informed choices.
At the beginning of the outbreak I took an informed choice to continue working, even though I was advised to shield – I knew I was at risk and, as a result of working, I did catch the virus.
I was advised that clinically I should have been admitted to hospital. I made the informed choice not to be admitted – yes I could have died, that didn’t worry me but I didn’t die – which I’m sure will piss some people off.
Some will raise the question, what about the vulnerable and it’s a fair point – Granny is more at risk but again it’s an informed choice to be made by the family.
What is the risk of catching Covid against catching something else or having a serious fall or being involved in an accident.
Life is full of risks it’s just this one has seemingly been blown out of all proportion fanned by mass hysteria, not helped by the media.
I don’t envy any Government dealing with this mess and there is no certainty Labour would have done any better – it’s times like this party politics should be put aside.
Nearly forgot to add the number of deaths from other causes will rise because of the concentration on Covid and these will, in all probability, exceed 42,000
Completely agree with your second post.
As for Chester, I would not go there on a race day now. One of my work colleagues has worked there as a steward. He says it is the worst stewarding job he has ever been asked to do. Lots of the crowd are hammered before they have even set foot in the racecourse.
Having said that, I would be sorry to lose Chester. The draw bias means you can rule out lots of runners, especially in the sprints. And it is the oldest track still racing on the same site, so it would be a great loss from a historical point of view. The sight of the horses swinging around the home turn with the Roman wall in the background is really impressive.
And what would Marwan Koukash do without Chester?!
- Total Posts 2553
paulostermeyer for Prime Minister
Good post Paul…
I think the cautious approach is because it is a new thing (new virus) whereas those other deaths have been around the block
plus its not considered pc in this day and age to just “get on with it” snowflakes would have a field dayGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Another thumbs-up here Paul
This article in The Lancet – which will therefore presumably be approved by Dr Befair – is worth a read, as it discusses the reasons for the ‘hysteria’ around Covid-19 compared to the public stoicism and governmental inaction in response to the last two major flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31201-0/fulltext
A recent issue of National Geographic magazine had an excellent article on pandemics through history
And by some way the best and most balanced analysis I’ve come across concerning the UK’s response to covid has been by Private Eye’s resident medic ‘MD’, who is Dr Phil Hammond of the ‘Trust me I’m a Doctor’ series on the goggler
The Lancet article was interesting Drone.
I can relate to the comments about respect for the medical profession – when I was growing up I was “taught” doctors are God and cannot be questioned – thankfully that attitude has changed.
Many doctors are absolutely brilliant, most are good but some are downright dangerous – in truth probably the same as in any profession.
There are certainly a handful of doctors at hospitals local to me I would refuse to have anywhere near me, indeed there are a few paramedics I would send away if they turned up when I needed one.
This is classic unscientific thinking; selectively choose those articles which support your prejudice.
This is classic unscientific thinking; selectively choose those articles which support your prejudice
Where did I state that I agreed with it? Just another article with just another opinion on what is a highly complex issue; but one I found more interesting than a myriad others. As the article points out, in the event of no vaccine becoming available in the foreseeable future it is unlikely any firm conclusions about the progress of this pandemic will be able to be made until it’s run its course
Until then I’ll keep an open mind about it and the efficacy of methods to combat it; and while the opinions of the scientific and medical communities will be taken with a much smaller pinch of salt than those of Joe Public, the latter’s will not be dismissed. Dismissal would be akin to jockeys bemoaning ‘jockeys in the stands’ criticising a poor ride because ‘what do they know, they’ve never ridden a horse’
Incidentally, a scientist you may be but obviously not a grammarian
Your two clauses quoted above should be punctuated by a colon, not a semi-colon. A reliable way to determine which of these two troublesome punctuation marks should be used is if the two clauses can be conjoined by the adverb ‘namely’ or the phrase ‘that is’ then a colon should be used
Trust me, I’m a clever dick
I’m sure Tank would agree
Paul
What annoys me is that Ayr Racecourse shares the same entrance at Tesco and there have been 1000s of people flooding into Tesco each day but the racecourse weren’t allowed any spectators. That despite the most stringent protocols being put in place by the racecourses.
Presumably Tesco will still be allowed their 1000s going forward but racecourses won’t be allowed crowds.
Ultimate absurdity at Newbury racecourse where they have ‘Pub In The Paddock’ with TV racing screened on non-race days, but can’t have any spectators on racedays. Whatever thought process goes on regarding current restrictions joined up thinking doesn’t seem to be part of it. Hey, but as long as the pubs are open…
Rob
Witty and Vallance have already made their utterance – showing a “projection” of 49,000 new cases a day by mid-October – although it could be argued that is a very extreme example but no point in discussing that here.
The “vibes” coming from the political correspondents is “hospitality” will be in the gun sights, which presumably will impact the return of spectators to racing, more so if they go further restrict different families mingling.
You may still get away with Newmarket this weekend because of this inexplicable habit of giving several days notice of any changes.
However with it becoming obvious a new wave of restrictions are in the pipeline it would seem highly likely sports will he hit.
Is 42,000 deaths really a big deal?
Not a massive deal to the other figures quoted (although those families affected will probably disagree). But also remember this was under lockdown. Figures quoted by scientists if we had gone on as normal were 500,000 deaths with 80% of the country being infected at some point, although a majority would be asymptomatic.
It was also not all about the number of deaths. It was the strain on the NHS.
Not only is it daft giving several days notice of increased restrictions but they seem to often announce the notice late in the working week to take effect the following week, allowing folk to enjoy a last hoorah piss-up or mass gathering over the intervening weekend
Still more bizarrely Blackpool was exempted from the Lancashire semi-lockdown, resulting in thousands descending on the resort over this weekend just gone
It’s almost as though the government have a cunning plan to encourage folk to flaunt existing restrictions for a few days, thereby allowing them to lay the blame on the great unwashed when infection rates spiral further
Or is that a conspiracy theory?
Drone – a question I have been asking for ages but nobody in Government ever gives an answer.
Both several broadcast journalists have also asked the question without getting an answer.
Hancock has already blamed the public for daring to request a test.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.