What grinds my gears...

[StanSP]

Just now, shade said:

That's my point, the narrative was "do your bit for society, prevent the spread" which we know isn't true from real world data. The government's own figures show you're twice as likely to contract covid if you're vaccinated in the 40-49 age bracket.

So the narrative was wrong, but the actual research never states it was to 'prevent' infection, just research it?

[shade]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

So the narrative was wrong, but the actual research never states it was to 'prevent' infection, just research it?

Yes it did, they even stated ridiculous figures like 90% etc which have subsequently been debunked.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-jab-protection-wanes-within-six-months-uk-researchers-2021-08-25/

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, shade said:

That's my point, the narrative was "do your bit for society, prevent the spread" which we know isn't true from real world data. The government's own figures show you're twice as likely to contract covid if you're vaccinated in the 40-49 age bracket.

I read some stats the other day showing most people who die in car accidents were wearing seat belts. It made me realise how dangerous they must be, so I've done the sensible thing and immediately stopped wearing one. I've also decided to protest and ask for them to be removed from all cars. 

[shade]

Just now, FoxesDeb said:

I read some stats the other day showing most people who die in car accidents were wearing seat belts. It made me realise how dangerous they must be, so I've done the sensible thing and immediately stopped wearing one. I've also decided to protest and ask for them to be removed from all cars. 

Yes, that is indeed true, but luckily for us the government have broken it down in to per 100,000 of the population. You can easily find this information yourself if you don't believe me. 

 

For every 100,000 vaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 2000 cases of covid in November.

 

For every 100,000 unvaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 900 cases of covid in November.

 

I only focus on this age group because I sadly fall within it...just.

[FoxesDeb]

5 minutes ago, shade said:

Yes, that is indeed true, but luckily for us the government have broken it down in to per 100,000 of the population. You can easily find this information yourself if you don't believe me. 

 

For every 100,000 vaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 2000 cases of covid in November.

 

For every 100,000 unvaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 900 cases of covid in November.

 

I only focus on this age group because I sadly fall within it...just.

If you were cynical you might think that the vaccinated people are the more responsible group of citizens and therefore more likely to bother testing, thus skewing the stats. 

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, shade said:

Yes, that is indeed true, but luckily for us the government have broken it down in to per 100,000 of the population. You can easily find this information yourself if you don't believe me. 

 

For every 100,000 vaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 2000 cases of covid in November.

 

For every 100,000 unvaccinated 40-49 year olds there were just over 900 cases of covid in November.

 

I only focus on this age group because I sadly fall within it...just.

Does that prove the vaccine was the cause of covid? 

 

What are the stats of severe illness or infections for that particular age group, comparatively from vaccinated to unvaccinated? 

[shade]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Does that prove the vaccine was the cause of covid? 

 

What are the stats of severe illness or infections for that particular age group, comparatively from vaccinated to unvaccinated? 

I don't disagree with you at all, the evidence is there in the same figures that it does decrease the risk of being hospitalised in that age bracket. Approximately 75% of 40-49 year olds are vaccinated whereas they make up just under 50% of hospitalisations, so it clearly does have some benefit. It's just that on balance, personally I decided not to.

[Samilktray]

45 minutes of adverts and trailers before a movie in the cinema is very unnecessary. I went to see a 7.15 showing of Spider-Man last night and it was gone 8 before the movie began. Also talking through movies in the cinema seems to be becoming the done thing. 

[Footballwipe]

3 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

45 minutes of adverts and trailers before a movie in the cinema is very unnecessary. I went to see a 7.15 showing of Spider-Man last night and it was gone 8 before the movie began. Also talking through movies in the cinema seems to be becoming the done thing. 

Always hated both of these aspects. I know there are some proper cinema buffs out there who will defend the experience to the death, but honestly as a proper casual cinema goer, this is why it'll die for me.

 

I can watch in pristine quality at home, I can pause the TV for a pee, I can eat what I like, I can sit in absolute silence, no getting up from other people, listening to rustling of food. I went to watch a film once and it felt like I was watching the Directors Cut as the two people behind me were narrating their thoughts after seemingly every line.

 

And then there's the adverts. Give me the real start time. Advertise the film to start at 8pm if it's gonna start then. Obviously that's not going to happen, but that black screen pause, and the hope the interminable ads are done with is crushing when they roll onto the next one.

 

Cinema's have done well to adapt in an era when they could easily die, but the accumulation of the little gripes is why me, as a casual, avoid the experience now.

[Beliall]

i generally dont like the cinema experience as well, though i still go because the actual movies are better on the big screen, but people talking, fidgeting, getting up to go toilet, eating crinkly sweets, kids messing around can all get in the bin. 
the best experience i had was when i went to see avater, the showing we went to see was the subtitled version and it was full of deaf people, place was silent and it was the best experience ever. i recommend it

[The Bear]

It's usually between 20 and 30 mins from the advertised time to the film starting. 

 

Though with the big releases they extend it slightly. 

 

I saw a 10am Spiderman showing in the Luxe Odeon recliner seat screening and it started just before 10:30.

[Finnegan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59729834

 

Just fvck off. Nobody fvcking wants it and when you put it in such obviously transparent terms you're not selling it at all. 

 

Clearly just about making the rich richer, again. As per. 

[Corky]

47 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59729834

 

Just fvck off. Nobody fvcking wants it and when you put it in such obviously transparent terms you're not selling it at all. 

 

Clearly just about making the rich richer, again. As per. 

The top nations wouldn't bother with it, I reckon, which would make it far less attractive and valuable.

[Free Falling Foxes]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59729834

 

Just fvck off. Nobody fvcking wants it and when you put it in such obviously transparent terms you're not selling it at all. 

 

Clearly just about making the rich richer, again. As per. 

Suppose it will give England twice as many opportunities not to win it before I pop off.

[ALC Fox]

7 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

Always hated both of these aspects. I know there are some proper cinema buffs out there who will defend the experience to the death, but honestly as a proper casual cinema goer, this is why it'll die for me.

 

I can watch in pristine quality at home, I can pause the TV for a pee, I can eat what I like, I can sit in absolute silence, no getting up from other people, listening to rustling of food. I went to watch a film once and it felt like I was watching the Directors Cut as the two people behind me were narrating their thoughts after seemingly every line.

 

And then there's the adverts. Give me the real start time. Advertise the film to start at 8pm if it's gonna start then. Obviously that's not going to happen, but that black screen pause, and the hope the interminable ads are done with is crushing when they roll onto the next one.

 

Cinema's have done well to adapt in an era when they could easily die, but the accumulation of the little gripes is why me, as a casual, avoid the experience now.

The general ads can do one, but I love the trailers, they properly get me in the cinema mood.

 

Generally I love the cinema experience, and it improves even a mediocre film, though it only takes a group of inconsiderate blighters to ruin it.

 

Watching a proper blockbuster or a really incredible movie on the big screen can still be a brilliant experience, for me.

[The Blur]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

It's usually between 20 and 30 mins from the advertised time to the film starting. 

 

Though with the big releases they extend it slightly. 

 

I saw a 10am Spiderman showing in the Luxe Odeon recliner seat screening and it started just before 10:30.

 

I think it is a psychological effect but I just cannot compute going to cinema in the morning to watch film.   I just always have associated entertainment with afternoon/evening.   Cannot blame you if you want to get away from the crowd although.

 

 

[The Bear]

13 hours ago, The Blur said:

 

I think it is a psychological effect but I just cannot compute going to cinema in the morning to watch film.   I just always have associated entertainment with afternoon/evening.   Cannot blame you if you want to get away from the crowd although.

 

 

I'm the same, I only do it for the big Marvel releases as I watch them with a mate who prefers the early showings. 

 

It was a Sat morning just after release so it was rammed any way. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

16 hours ago, Finnegan said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59729834

 

Just fvck off. Nobody fvcking wants it and when you put it in such obviously transparent terms you're not selling it at all. 

 

Clearly just about making the rich richer, again. As per. 

This quite a flawed assessment by the powers that be. A world cup every four years (like the Olympics) leads to people expending large sums to be part of the experience. Its considered rare, unique and a moment not to be missed. If you reduce that prestige, all of a sudden it becomes more accessible and people are reluctant to take that added risk of expense to experience it. Its like a designer handbag. A Chanel is considered rare and limited and attracts ridiculous sums upward of £2500. While a Marc Jacobs which is far more accessible can be picked up for anything in between £500-£1000. 

 

You cant use 4 year projections against a 2 year model. 

 

Keep it as it is. World cup years are one of life's special times. 

[Dahnsouff]

I think what they says is true, but only in the short term. Initially it would generate this increased income, but it would level out as per the 4 year cycle once the novelty has wore off.

[Corky]

4 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

I think what they says is true, but only in the short term. Initially it would generate this increased income, but it would level out as per the 4 year cycle once the novelty has wore off.

Absolutely. There is a line between leaving people wanting more and people being turned off by the regularity of something.

 

World Cup every two years sounds great (to some) until it happens.

[Facecloth]

Booked to get one of my front tyres replaced today between half 4 and half 5. Turn up at the tyre place at 16:35, and it's already shut. It's meant to close at half 5.

 

Whilst my tyre isn't bald, it's below the required tread level and needs replacing. I'm meant to be in the office tomorrow, which is about 25 miles away, so thanks Loughborough Refurbs for shutting early and leaving me to decide if I either ask to stay home (I'm the only one from my team in tomorrow) or drive on a tyre that needs replacing. 

Edited 21 December 2021 by Facecloth

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Booked to get one of my front tyres replaced today between half 4 and half 5. Turn up at the tyre place at 16:35, and it's already shut. It's meant to close at half 5.

 

Whilst my tyre isn't bald, it's below the required tread level and needs replacing. I'm meant to be in the office tomorrow, which is about 25 miles away, so thanks Loughborough Refurbs for shutting early and leaving me to decide if I either ask to stay home (I'm the only one from my team in tomorrow) or drive on a tyre that needs replacing. 

 

Couldn't you cycle?

 

Or would that leave you too tired...

[Facecloth]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Couldn't you cycle?

 

Or would that leave you too tired...

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Booked to get one of my front tyres replaced today between half 4 and half 5. Turn up at the tyre place at 16:35, and it's already shut. It's meant to close at half 5.

 

Whilst my tyre isn't bald, it's below the required tread level and needs replacing. I'm meant to be in the office tomorrow, which is about 25 miles away, so thanks Loughborough Refurbs for shutting early and leaving me to decide if I either ask to stay home (I'm the only one from my team in tomorrow) or drive on a tyre that needs replacing. 

Could throw the space saver on if your car has one.

[Facecloth]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Could throw the space saver on if your car has one.

Unfortunately it doesn't.