Jump to content

dsr-burnley

Member
  • Post count

    282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

199 Good

About dsr-burnley

  • Rank
    Reserve Team

Recent Profile Visitors

1,500 profile views
  1. They would do more to ensure the safety of students by banning alcohol. So far this year there have been 34 people aged between 15 and 24 who have died with coronavirus, and I doubt that many of those dies of coronavirus alone. There are no doubt valid reasons for testing everybody, but safety of students isn't the reason.
  2. Peru had the strictest lockdown of all which lasted until June when everyone was running out of money and so they had to ease it. That was when their cases really took off. It's ironic that Brazil next door, with a loon President who decreed that coronavirus doesn't exist and there was no need for restrictions at all, has a much lower death rate than Peru. (All countries have a much lower death rate than Peru)
  3. To be fair, the system Everton were playing at the time was "stand back and give them a clear run".
  4. It does. But bearing in mind the sort of money Leicester have spent and the sort of money Burnley have spent over the past 4 years that we've coincided in the PL, and bearing mind that Leicester's extra spend has been worth 4 points a season and that we#ve each had one European qualification, I doubt Burnley are going to try and compete on spending with Leicester.
  5. No, you're still missing my point. You're still working on the basis that if the country has rules like Sweden then the virus would be far far worse than it has been so far (unlike Sweden) and would go on for ever and ever (unlike Sweden). As long as you are convinced that behaving like Sweden would give results worse than any other system that has ever been tried (including Sweden) then you will obviously continue to hate the idea. But I can't see any evidence that any result would be much worse than we have now. My point is and remains that option 3 needs to be considered because it could be better for the vulnerable than options 1 and 2. I am not saying this because I want people to die. I am saying this because I believe that it may result in fewer people dying. How about this for a supposition. If there is a vulnerable person in the house, and the disease becomes as severe or worse as it was in March/April, then the vulnerable do as they did then. Either they all lock down together, or they separate and live separately. That's what I would do with my mother, who I live with and therefore I have to lockdown too. How would my mother be protected if I had to leave the house? We solved that by me not leaving the house very much at all, and then only for outdoors and shoppiing once every 3 weeks. It mattered. It still matters.
  6. It's our good luck that no-one else values him highly enough to be worth selling. There's more to football than money.
  7. I don't know when there will be a vaccine. I don't know if there will ever be a vaccine. I don't know the details of how we protect the vulnerable. We have several choices but until the vaccine arrives, we don't know which to pick. But one thing all options have in common is that the vulnerable should self-isolate until we have a herd immunity. That is what we are doing now, option 1. The vulnerable are self isolating until we have herd immunity created by vaccine. Another option, option 2, also being put into practice now, if that if we don't have a vaccine we continue self-isolating until we do. If the vaccine never arrives, then herd immunity never arrives, and we stay like this forever. This is what option 1 becomes if there is no vaccine That is what we appear to be doing now. Obviously IMO we need a third option. One suggestion is that we try and create herd immunity by letting the healthy take their chances and protecting the vulnerable. This would be option 3 And IMO again, as option 1 takes longer and longer and becomes the more certain to become option 2, then we need to morph into option 3. But my overriding point is that all these options have one thing in common. The vulnerable have to self isolate for their own protection. I don't see any way round it. Until we have herd immunity, the vulnerable are vulnerable. We can assess at what point (sans vaccine) we need to go out and try option 3 - which has to be better than option 4, where we take our chance and don't protect the vulnerable - but if option 1 fails, option 2 is not viable indefinitely because it starts to killl more than it saves. The question IMO is when we move to another option.
  8. At present the proposal is that the vulnerable should be protected until there is a vaccine. So complaints that vulnerable people will have to wait until there is a vaccine under this suggested alternative, are a bit odd IMO - this system would make things no worse. What this system would be trying to do would be to make things better. This system is trying to do exactly what a vaccine would be trying to do - create herd immunity. It might - I say might - do it faster. Evidence from Sweden is promising and evidence from Brazil is not damning. I don't see that loads of people with coronavirus all at the same time would cause chaos in employment. Most non-vulnerable people don't even know they have got it. Leyton Orient had more than half their staff down with it and had turned up to play a football match and had to be told they were "ill". It has next to no apparent effects on most of the healthy. 6 months ago we went into lockdown and were told that in 6 months' time we should be getting back to normal. 6 months have passed. And we are being told that in 6 months from now, we should be getting back to normal. That's the definition of "indefinite". To call people selfish for putting forward proposals that don't meet your idea of what should be done, is not helpful IMO. Universal lockdown is not the best of all possible worlds and other systems should be considered.
  9. Apparently some clubs (specifically Burnley, but I believe it's common) have stopped producing sew-on badges because copyright pirates would buy them in bulk, stick them on their own rip-off products, and pass them off as official. That's why they can't be found any more.
  10. If everyone else carried on as normal, it would make no difference to the vulnerable. There's no merit in saying that Mr Vulnerable is forced to stop at home so let's make Mr. Healthy stop at home too because it's fairer. If the healthy catch the disease then herd immunity may come sooner. That's what we're aiming for, after all, whether by vaccination or otherwise. If we all stay inside and hide, and the magic vaccine doesn't come, then this thing will never end. Our lives will become permanently stop-at-home-till-you-die-of-something-else. The government wants to suspend rule by parliament and to suspend normal civil liberties even to the extent of banning visiting your mother. If the government wants to do this, they need a damn fine set of evidence. Not a "we don't know what to do so we'll do something anyway". The government may have this evidence. Not the farrago that Whitty and Vallance invented last monday, but actual hard evidence, statistical, medical, economic, everything. Tell the public what is going on, what is expected to happen, why the government is doing what it is, and above all what are they hoping to achieve.
  11. It is a different era. He was 21 then, he is 31 now. Last time Mee played for Leicester, Jamie Vardy was playing for Halifax Town. (I dare say both players are better now than they were then.) Ben Mee is in one particular sense ideal for Burnley. He's good enough to play 300 games for us but not so good that richer clubs want to buy him. And of course he doesn't have the primary attribute teams want in their defenders and goalkeepers nowadays - the ability to dribble past three men in your own penalty area. That's why he's underrated. As a defender, there are few better. Certainly not outside the "rich six".
  12. We have two of the best defenders in the PL (certainly among the best outside the "big 6") and no experienced reserves at all. If we sell for £35m net £26m but get relegated it would not be a wise decision. There's more to football than money in the bank.
  13. Most of the rest of the league has rich owners putting the money in. For example, Bournemouth have been spending about £40m per year more than Burnley, on wages and transfers, ever since they got promoted. (Which is why they are skint now and why we could never compete with them on wages. Not that Howe and Dyche go after the same players!) And yourselves - your current owners have put close to £300m into the club. There aren't a lot of clubs who can't wildly outspend us.
  14. If you really want to throw in a name that might tempt Burnley, you could try for Albrighton. Erik Pieters is our right sided midfield player at the moment. But I still don't think it would work!
  15. The chairman insists on keeping money back for a rainy day and Dyche thinks he's not spending enough. We don't need to raise money, but we haven't got lots to spare. One reason we don't spend fortunes on new players is that we're pretty good at keeping the ones we've got. Michael Keane was the last expensive departure that they would have preferred to keep, and crucially, that was when we had his replacement (Tarkowski) already at the club and had been for 18 months.
×
×
  • Create New...