bmt

This one is a cracking wind up.

I think we will smash these. I'd probably keep it similar to Arsenal with Chilwell on the left. If Maddison is fit I'd probably put him in for Perez. If 3 at the back isn't working we can change it at half time, but I think it's worth persevering to overcome the small mistakes we were making in the Arsenal game.

Realistically if Chilwell was fit we probably would have spanked them. I thought the main issue was them getting space behind our wingbacks and Soyuncu making a few mistakes. Think we played okay and Arsenal currently are a very good team, we just had a dreadful 20 minutes first half - before their goal it was pretty even and first 10 we were the better team by far.

If you only look at that stat (which shows nothing) and think it actually means something, man United are clearly cheating.

I dont think its about making a difference but he said sending a message. I agree, if people are getting stopped from doing their jobs in leicester, football shouldn't be happening.

What does pillar 2 mean? Just looked: Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers Pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance Pillar 3: serology testing to show if people have antibodies from having had COVID-19 Pillar 4: serology and swab testing for national surveillance supported by PHE, ONS, Biobank, universities and other partners to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus and for other testing research purposes, for example on the accuracy and ease of use of home testing

There's a lot of speculation without much evidence. For me most of the factors can be found in a multitude of other cities though, so no doubt there is significant bad luck involved too. And of course the huge increase in testing in Leicester compared to other cities leads to more realistic numbers. In other cities, no doubt, there will be a higher proportion of untested (and therefore unknown) positives.

I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying I have some sympathy.

Well it depends on your reading of 'for'. I think it's clear nobody would think that policy was dictated by posh people getting to their second homes. But people are keen to jump down others throats rather than think about what they probably mean when using ambiguous language. The fact of the matter is that London should have been locked down and wasn't, which led to rich people leaving for other places and causing harm when intranational travel should have been kept at a minimum. Now Leicester is being locked down, and to me that's a massive double standard based purely on political and economic importance. Also I disagree it reads like that anyway. The 'for' refers to the words before it - 'long enough', not 'delayed'.

It's what happened. I know loads of people from uni who ****ed off when they were delaying locking London down.

I wasn't saying it was... but it just led to people spreading it by leaving the city (those who could afford to).

I don't live in Leicester. I understand the frustration is what I was saying.

The R rate is bollocks though. If one person infects 2 the R rate is 2 but its an extremely containable scenario. You have 3 infected people. If 100 people infect 180 the R rate is 1.8 and you're in the shit. You have 280 infected people. It only is meaningful in context.

I'm not in the area but I do actually have some sympathy with those who won't obey this lockdown. When London needed to be locked down to stop the nationwide spread, it wasn't. It was delayed long enough for all middle class Londoners to spread across the whole country, and then the whole country was locked down instead. Why should we be treated differently? Government ministers, advisors, and the mayor of Leicester have all broken lockdown rules. Why should we act any differently?

What you don't think that's clear? A map with multiple boundaries and no key? You honestly couldn't write it!