www.altyfans.co.uk

Quote from: Hugh on January 02, 2022, 12:30:22 AM

Quote from: distancetraveller on December 31, 2021, 10:38:06 AM

Quote from: Hugh on December 30, 2021, 11:58:17 PM

Apparently league players will no longer be tested on match days for a virus that's been going round unless they have symptoms of it.

I presume this testing business is continuing in the NL? Just to be clear, I am not prepared to buy a ticket days in advance for a match that could be called off at any time. If there are tickets still available on Monday, then fine, but it is disappointing that once again this season people are having to miss out on a significant number of matches. Hopefully things will be back to normal after Stockport (or if we go down). Lucky old Narine not having to worry about getting to this level.

I wouldn’t say people are having to miss out on games.

The option for you to go is there, you have chosen not to take up that opportunity to ensure a ticket..

Your choice Hugh

The Wrexham match sold out of tickets, and I suspect the problem was especially acute for Wrexham fans who would have brought many more than a thousand. People who try hard enough and are prepared to take the risk will not be able to go. If Wrexham sold out, Stockport sure would have. Are you having a go at however many hundred would have gone with a 6,000 capacity but didn't get a ticket in time? Do be sensible.

It didn't sell out, the crowd was well under 3.9k capacity.

It merely sold out in the away end.

My mistake. I was told on the day of the match when I phoned the club that there were no tickets left. Maybe they just weren't selling any on the day.

I still say that more would have gone if we could have paid on the gate (me for a start) though I accept the club did the right thing in the circumstances and applaud their stance.

I am sure that if the league went B.C.D. then we would be allowed to stream the matches. As for regular games, not for me.

I really do appreciate how useful it would be for those who cannot travel for health reasons but it would be vastly outweighed by those who would have travelled, but decide to watch the stream instead, because it's convenient and easy.

The team needs physical, vocal support from everyone who is able to do so, particularly away from home. Regular streaming of games would promote armchair support. That's fine if you're United and there's always a next person to take the spare away ticket, but not us.

Are they streaming in Wales and Scotland then?

They're talking about restrictions in Scotland until April, so there's a slight chance that Wrexham would be bcd when we play them if Wales does the same thing(though it shouldn't happen if things go as I expect). Obviously in those circumstances, one would hope the game would be streamed.

According to Professor Anthony Brookes, quoted in the Expreee, "currently the risk of death for the population as a whole is no worse than for seasonal influenza... and virtually zero for healthy teenagers". See here:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1543468/coronavirus-news-covid-risk-of-death-over-70s-vaccine-immunity-treatments

Sorry to bring "not actual evidence" on here again. Still, my advice stands - if you are considering having these covid "vaccines" that are being administered under emergency authorisation, and especially if you are a younger healthy male, it is worth fully researching the matter. And here once again is a place you could start, remembering to read it carefully, ask questions and be aware of what is not said, as well as what is said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full

Deary me! Where to start?

If you want to throw around accusations of killing, maybe I should say something about collaborating with a lying corrupt pharmaceutical industry that we know has done some very dubious things in the past, including things that have been harmful to people's health, an industry that appears to have backed the government into imposing health apartheid on England (and the club into a 3.9k capacity limit for that matter meaning that some people inevitably missed out on the Wrexham game) and has previously made concerted attempts to influence NHS policy, and that is about business and profit rather than charity.

But leaving that aside, the article I link to states "hospital admission or death" and "the general population".

Saying hospital admission or death is not very useful on its own as it does not tell us how many of each. If the hospital admissions who don't die and only have mild myocarditis are greater for one group than the other, that is a vital factor too. And there is evidence that people who get myocarditis after these "vaccines" rather than after "covid" have a more severe case of myocarditis. According to 'eminent cardiologist' Dr. Peter McCullough, "the myocarditis experienced by those infected with covid is milder than that experienced by the 'vaccinated' and is 'inconsequential". So if he is right, even for the general population, they may not necessarily be less likely to die of myocarditis from these "vaccines" - it is not clear from this study. But whether or not he is right, the Oxford study goes straight on to say that "the risk of myocarditis in younger males following 'vaccination' is consistently higher" . I wrote "males under 40" in the title of the post, I also mentioned "younger males" in the final paragraph, I linked to the article where people can read it for themselves, and I encouraged people to do their own research - such as reading this article. I maybe could have mentioned what it says about other groups but then again I could have mentioned any number of other things not relating to the group to whom I was referring. It's fair enough of course if you want to point out what it says about other groups too, but I don't think I have been unreasonable in what I have written, and I suggest it is important to read very carefully what these studies say and don't say. If you are saying that young healthy males should have these controversial "vaccines" without doing any research - and we know from the government's own data that no healthy 15-17 year olds had died from "covid" (the last I heard), it could be that that would put their health at greater risk, depending on their circumstances. And that's all I am saying - research it, be aware of the risks and benefits. And as it happens, the law also says that people may only be given medication with free and informed consent. And that's all I am saying - inform yourself. I think it is important not to brush these risks under the carpet as you and too many others appear to advocate. It will only make people at low risk more suspicious of these "vaccines" if they think that people are down-playing the risks - and by implication more suspicious of future new medications too if they think they have not been told everything about this one. It is absolutely vital to discuss these things.

If we're going to quote  from the study, I may also add that it mentions the JCVI, which recommended against giving these "vaccines" to healthy 12-15 year olds and was overruled by the government, so  I make no apologies for questioning some of the things we are being told, I don't believe that it is acceptable to put children at risk for anything really and am very concerned about the JCVI being overruled like this. The article also mentions funding from Cancer Research UK, which is owned by pharmaceutical companies - one of many,  many conflicts of interest among some of the people who we hear from on the pharmaceutical industry's  mRNA coronavirus "vaccines".

Apparently you get to decide what counts as "actual" evidence and are dismissing out of hand various groups of doctors and medical scientists, the government's own yellow card data, an inventor of mRNA technology called Dr. Robert Mallone, a professor who said that there is "no reliable evidence that the 'vaccines' reduce all-cause mortality", LifeSiteNews (which rather looks like you're having a go at Catholics now) and I dare say you will dismiss "eminent cardiologist" Peter McCullough and former vice president of Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon (who is pro-vaccine but very concerned about this novel mRNA "vaccine"). But if you're going to insist on all that, then maybe I am entitled to insist on a second opinion about these "vaccines" when we hear a lot about them from people (including people who advise the government) who have a conflict of interest on them.

I should add that I have serious concerns that free and informed consent may not be taking place with people who get this medication in some instances and in the current circumstances. I am well aware from my years of pro-life involvement of how with other medical interventions where vested interests and politics are involved  there are cases where people do not give free and informed consent to medical interventions administered, and with so many powerful voices (some of who have interests in the pharmaceutical industry as I say) urging people to take these controversial gene therapy drugs that are being administered under emergency authorisation, I am certain that similar things will be happening with these "vaccines", and I think it is perfectly reasonable to provide some balance, tell people to do their own research and do what is best for their health which as we have seen (from the JCVI being overruled) may be something different from the sophisticated and incessant government propaganda

Only a small number of healthy males under 40 have died from "covid" and no healthy people at all aged 15-17 last I heard. And this new variant is more mild and will give them natural immunity once they have had it. Don't endanger those who are not at risk from "covid" by telling them to get a controversial "vaccine" without informing themselves about it, and which some scientists say may put them at increased risk (including the JCVI for 12-15 year olds apparently).

And just so you know, some people are suggesting that people should have three or four doses of these "vaccines" every year for a decade or more. Even if there is only relatively low risk from 2 doses, the risk may increase significantly by the time they get to thirty or forty doses - when I had ibuprofen for an extended period, I  found I had to give it up in the end. A similar principle will apply with some other medication. Furthermore, four times a year is rather more times than people would get symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 after acquiring natural immunity. Let people make their own choices.

I do think you need to learn to take on board that other people have different opinions from you on some things, and that they may have good and deeply felt reasons for doing so. It's not just on this, is it, that you have a bit of an attitude. People are having to miss match attendance because of all this nonsense so of course some of us will have strong views about this.

Would you have any of them back at Alty? Any would probably be a bit controversial, and you might struggle to find one or two of them...

Happy new year! Might even get to see you at a match one of these days!

Quote from: Wilmslow Alty on December 28, 2021, 11:03:28 AM

Unlikely any restrictions will hit before 2nd Jan. It's pretty clear the Government is desperate not to hit hospitality over Christmas and New Year. From the 2nd, all bets are off.

There will be no restrictions on England at all now. What'd be the point?

Noo point of course, but the pressure's still mounting for it this week. Go figure.

Quote from: Hugh on December 30, 2021, 11:58:17 PM

Apparently league players will no longer be tested on match days for a virus that's been going round unless they have symptoms of it.

I presume this testing business is continuing in the NL? Just to be clear, I am not prepared to buy a ticket days in advance for a match that could be called off at any time. If there are tickets still available on Monday, then fine, but it is disappointing that once again this season people are having to miss out on a significant number of matches. Hopefully things will be back to normal after Stockport (or if we go down). Lucky old Narine not having to worry about getting to this level.

I wouldn’t say people are having to miss out on games.

The option for you to go is there, you have chosen not to take up that opportunity to ensure a ticket..

Your choice Hugh

The Wrexham match sold out of tickets, and I suspect the problem was especially acute for Wrexham fans who would have brought many more than a thousand. People who try hard enough and are prepared to take the risk will not be able to go. If Wrexham sold out, Stockport sure would have. Are you having a go at however many hundred would have gone with a 6,000 capacity but didn't get a ticket in time? Do be sensible.