Your interest in me is a bit weird, but hey ho, I have no fear of weirdness or anything else come to that. Chill out man and post on the topic in hand.
I have, but it is what @lardiman and @The Pub Landlord have said. There is no need for what @Sandman is saying.
Back on topic, it's said that if we had this in the 1950's, there would have been only 20,000 deaths...that's how unhealthy we are. Well not me personally, I'm like a Gazelle..
Average life expectancy for British men in 1951 was 66 years. In 2020 it is 79 years. The infant mortality rate in the UK during the first year of life in 1950 was 31.2%. Compared to under 4% today. In the 1950's 80% of men in the UK smoked tobacco. Now that figure is 20%. The death rate from lung cancer has halved since the 1970's. And none of the figures above are "said". They are facts. You can take anything that is "said" to support any argument you want to make, including anti-lockdown or anti-vacc or anything else. But the truth, decades of facts supported by evidence, show we have advanced in every way during the last 70 years. On average we live longer and healthier lives now than we did back then, even allowing for the recent excesses of junk food among poorer people. That's how unhealthy we really are. And in the 1950's there were far fewer people who'd have been more vulnerable to life-threatening COVID19 infection - simply because most would already have died from something else, whereas our modern healthcare system enables them to live for much longer. That simple statement alone invalidates your theory that an estimated 20,000 Coronavirus deaths in the 1950's means we are less healthy now than we were then. Care to engage in a grown-up debate on this subject? I expect not. Go ahead by all means with your usual response; tell me to chill out, or accuse me of over-reacting, being a prick, or stalking you etc. All I've actually done is called out one of your spurious sayings with some solid facts and common sense.
Mr Lardiman, surely enough is enough with Gelan. I have not opened any of his posts since I put him on ignore, I'm glad.
I'd do the same if I wasn't doing the caretaking Elfs. But no worries. I'm happy to debate anti-lockdown views, and debunk anti-vacc nonsense. Anything worse than that will disappear. This is an easy-going and friendly forum. And that's the way it's staying.
Ditto. Even Old Reamsy gave him loads of warnings before banning him.Your choice, Lardy, but why put yourself through the aggro? You have everyone else's support.
Exactly. The prick annoys the f*** out of people then gives it a load of peace and love cobblers. Get rid of him.
He's absolutely barking. He does not go to the games, he has not done for years. He talks less about the football than me.
I post a quote from talk radio (validity unknown) and there is total meltdown. Ask Lardi to remove posts that offend you, it's that simple.
I've never had anyone on ignore before, including dear old Ackers, and I've been on 606 and Not606 for so many years.
You did not post at the time that the validity was unknown. And there was not a melt-down. Personally I can't believe a radio poll would find a majority of people saying they won't be vaccinated, unless the poll was heavily weighted in favour of seeking that reply. It sounds like anti-vacc propaganda, which a responsible radio station should not be broadcasting. Most people don't like reading or listening to what looks/sounds like anti-vacc propaganda.
You aren't on trial and there isn't a jury. Stop playing the victim. It's nothing personal. If any other member conducted themselves the way you do, they would be treated the same. I too would expect to be, if I posted what you post and someone else was moderating this forum. If you'd simply stop winding people up, they would not dislike you.
