Leaderboard

Easier to say who isn’t. Assuming we’re talking science and medicine, here are a few: Lineker Markle Harry Wales Hugh Grant Lily Allen Owen Jones Me Gribz is a bit suspect.

You've provided un-sourced Flu numbers, but that's it, I think? I'm sorry you've been hit personally, but you're not alone, there. BD was clearly riled by your interpretation, but he can speak for himself. As far as I can see, the following are your main posts, which kind of merge into each other: According to WHO, there have been approximately 573,288 deaths from COVID-19 reported worldwide (as of July); and estimates that 290,000 to 650,000 people die of flu-related causes every year worldwide. The COVID-19 deaths cover 2-3 months. The Flu 'estimates' are based on 12 months. Even if COVID-19 deaths are 'hugely exaggerated', the figures suggest it is clearly much more dangerous than the Flu. Moreover, there are Flu vaccines, of which a large proportion of the population get every year. There is no COVID-19 vaccine. There’s a lot we don’t know about COVID-19 — how it spreads, how it infects people, how it causes damage in the body, how the immune system responds to it, etc. Flu, on the other hand, has been around for a long time, so scientists and doctors know a lot about it, including the best way to treat people. There was a source I saw that was as sceptical about the seriousness of COVID-19 as you are, which stated that around 21,000 died from flu every 'winter season' (5 months?), whereas around 9,000 had died from COVID-19 over around 2 months. These figures suggest it's quite comparable. However, I believe these figures only include hospital deaths from COVID-19, so we can assume it is much more, as those in care homes etc. are more at risk. Moreover, lockdown has curtailed the spread, whereas the Flu spreads unrestricted. I don't see how you can claim it's not more dangerous than previous strains - even if the numbers are grossly exaggerated. BD challenged your Actuaries data quite thoroughly. I can't comment on your claim that 'fairly senior NHS' staff are being threatened with suspension if they 'speak out', because it's just based on your word. I'm not an expert -- I've probably missed a lot -- but even a cursory look at the figures suggests your claims are spurious -- that sounds harsh, but at the very least you have a colourful interpretation. Someone more capable could do a better job at challenging your view, if you were willing.

The Bear Necessities.

Well now, this thread's taken an unexpected turn since I last visited. So if Covid 19 is a global hoax, who is behind it and why? I lost a friend to Covid 19, he didn't have any underlying health issues beforehand, his death was sudden and shocking. Three other family friends also died of it, they were older and did have underlying health issues. They all lived in the same small town, two in a care home, and the virus swept through taking the lives of a number of older people in a short space of time. I guess I'm struggling to accept it doesn't exist or is in fact just your normal winter flu. But I'm fascinated to see your workings on this @Gaffer and trying to remain open-minded. You're not stupid so you must understand why posts as incendiary as yours have created reactions ranging from disbelief to anger. No one likes being called a fool, and that's what you're inferring we all are. I'm fairly cynical and hold a high degree of scepticism towards politicians but even I'm struggling to accept Boris Johnson and his cabinet and advisors are covering up thousands of deaths, ruining the economy and upsetting millions of voters on purpose and that he's managed to get Nicola Sturgeon and the Irish Taoiseach in on it with him.

Agreed. The scientific method is designed to enable people to disagree, and for our understanding of our existence to be enhanced by it over time.

There has been alot of criticism about the politicisation of expert advice by the government who in some cases appear to have ignored a number of warnings and recommendations presented to them by their own advisors through SAGE. The makeup and transparency of SAGE has been criticised - with many saying that they did not have a sufficient public health focus at least initially. One group who have consistently questions the government's approach even formed their own independent SAGE, who met and publicised their expert opinions on the data and what recommendations they would make in response. In turn this appears to have somewhat influenced some government decisions but there remains a lot of disagreement because the government isn't or hasn't followed key areas of recommendation for political and economic reasons of their choosing. I understand you are going through a difficult time, as many others are, but suggesting the Covid-19 is a hoax is not credible. You've made some false assertions in this post too about curing other diseases, although I do agree that there is a very real public health hangover to come once the health service gets back to a more normal footing, with all manner of screenings, tests, operations and diseases that are potentially under reported. But whilst I'm critical about elements of the approach we have taken in the UK (personally I think we should have acted sooner and more strongly at a number of stages), to not have taken the action they did with the likes of the temporary hospitals and putting the NHS on somewhat of a war footing and everyone into lockdown, things would have been far far worse and many more people than yourself would be going through a similar time

Like they would know! Thankfully these days the media is as n the dark as we are.

Seems to me here’s a trend on social media not only to question expert opinion but to deny it out of hand. I read there is absolutely nothing to be gained by wearing masks when it’s patently obvious that isn’t true. We might argue about the efficacy of masks and whether that benefit is the same for everyone. We might debate whether masks should have been introduced sooner or where they should be worn, or even the type of masks we should wear, but to declare on behalf of humanity that masks should not be worn seems to me to be arrogant and selfish. If one Other person feels less vulnerable, less fearful because I do them the courtesy of wearing a mask then surely that alone is reason enough to do so. Or have we become so self-serving that we don’t care about others and are willing to invent expertise to justify it? It’s not about big brother or controlling society. It’s just a f**king face mask and the tiny effort to wear one for others. If you can’t get your head round that you need to have a serious word with yourself.

Greig’s.

Regarding Covid and face masks, the truth is elusive and everyone will have to live with their own decisions. But I suspect the latest Govt instructions are a response to what will shortly be announced - that the Oxford vaccine trials have failed and all focus must now be on controlling the virus through next winter and spring. That will mean doing absolutely everything possible to minimise transmission rates by the autumn and face masks are one element. One thing we would be wise to accept is that we might not actually be the virology or epidemiology experts we think we are - and be prepared to listen to advice like adults.

It's also possible to support anti-racism initiatives and have nothing to do with BLM.

I happened to notice a thrilling debate kick off elsewhere. It is probably worth dedicating an entire thread to this great question.

Better tell the Board to cancel the 150th celebrations in 2022 then!

Ok so let’s all agree on something. How about “There are lots of non-experts around so therefore there are no experts at all”. Or let’s try another one - “experts sometimes get it wrong, therefore experts never get it right”. See how clever we can be when we try really hard. The point of experts isn’t to tell you the answers to everything and make decisions for you. It’s to provide informed opinion so you can reach better decisions yourself. It all goes tits up when you mix these things up.

I'll be sorry to see you go, Gaffer. We've had a couple of disagreements but you come across as a very reasonable bloke and it's always good to question authority.

Some bad news for bears local to me in Tranent. Life-long, true blue, Robert Antoniuk (right) sadly passed away Saturday 4th July. Last game was v Aberdeen on 1st Feb where, despite a 0-0 draw, he sung his heart out & kicked every ball as he knew it would be the last time he visited his beloved Ibrox. Robert (left) attended the Dons game with his son Steven & best pal Norrie Buchanan. Steven is actually a big Celtic fan but he will be attending the funeral wearing a Rangers scarf to remember his auld man who followed the club for over 60 years. RIP Robert (2/8/1955 - 4/7/2020)!

RIP Robert - thoughts and prayers with his family and friends. "And with the angels I'll be singing, up in heaven there up above, I'll be singing follow follow to the Rangers that I love".

It was a Wrexham reserve side we played, eleven changes from their previous game against Bromely and none started in their next game against Yeovil. There were five teenagers in Wrexham's starting lineup that played at Ibrox.

Apparently the Sun are correct in this case

Good question. Perceived wisdom is it was a delayed title party because it was the first weekend where beer gardens are fully open. Queens Park railway station is on Victoria Road, Billy McNeill's old pub is twenty yards away and another bar, the Queens Park Cafe is 50 yards up the road. Both establishments are south side haunts for the Green Brigade. The disruption at the station was considerable. Several dozen turned up in the olive drab uniform and Police Scotland and the British Transport Police reacted. All trains were cancelled for 3-4 hours. As stated, there were three arrests. We do not know the charges, the three do not seem to have appeared in court. The disruption, a dozen police vehicles, and several dozen dispersed. The story has been Hollicomed.

That what it was when selling Ashley's rags....

Playing the man? I thought you were better than that. You've made some big claims, surely you can provide some evidence? I'm intrigued.

You really haven't given yours. You claim to have talked to some unnamed NHS people (I've talked to some who contradict what you've said). You've made claims about actuarial figures but not given a source and don't explain what mortality rate table the were using (it can have a big impact on the results as I'm sure you know). You haven't looked at overall deaths to compare what the actual level is excluding Covid deaths (which of course aren't Covid. You've claimed Covid deaths aren't caused by Covid but given no evidence. You've made spurious claims about it all being a hoax. Anyway, what exactually did I say that was "factually" incorrect? That actuaries can come up with different results depending on what mortality table they use? What is factually incorrect about that? That actuaries are usually wrong? I've had dealings with actuaries for 25 years and what they produce are estimates that are usually off the mark. They would be the first to admit it as things change. If you wish to dispute that they are usually wrong then knock yourself out but I could produce plenty of actuarial reports that turn out to be totally different from what actually happened. That includes medium term mortality rates which can vary significantly (short term mortality rates are just a crap shoot anyway). Are you suggesting that the hospitals are empty because lockdown isn't working? Are you suggesting that nobody has died of covid that hasn't been reported as covid? Do you know the meaning of "factually"?

Yeah 50,000 plus in the Vauxhall Conference League paying £500 pounds for a season ticket - players like Kent, Hagi, Davis, Defoe, Borna willing to drop to that level and take a huge pay cut in the process ? 50,000 plus waiting 5 years at least (in reality it would / could take at least a decade) to get to EPL with no European football or cup runs and little or no TV coverage ? Not to mention how much money the club would lose via sponsorship deals, corporate hospitality and other commercial deals. All assuming UEFA, English FA and English Clubs agree. Where do I sign up?

I can't believe some people still think Rangers playing in England is a possibility.

The blue spree of Ibrox ?

The big bad Gers!

In October 2019, the prediction was for an 83k increase in deaths for 2020. There are many reasons for this. The problem we now have is that there is a knock on effect of deaths which will be caused by the effects of the lockdown (e.g. Lack of cancer screening) and these numbers are what really frighten me.

Yeah, I don't think what they are doing is unreasonable. Happy to pay my fiver to know I'll get in, that everyone's temperature is checked and get my drink once we're in.

There's a difference between us preventing black players protesting and the club actively supporting BLM. The club should stick to the Everyone Anyone campaign, Anti-racism without the politics. It also avoids the element of bullying players into actions they may not be comfortable with.

Yeah, was struggling to log onto Rangers tickets to buy MyGers and it was frustrating me. Managed to get in after trying it 7 other ways and it's now bought.

Well, it skews competition completely when one, or more, competitors have no incentive, or obligation, to operate commercially, and generate by their own activities the wherewithal to invest and reinvest. Abu Dhabi's Manchester franchise, and "Paris" Saint-Germain perhaps are the most egregious examples of this. That the Manchester concession has not completely dominated the league is down to the fact that other teams seems to have generated sufficient income to challenge. I do have to note that the recent UEFA charges relate to several years ago, although I am loathe to assume that the franchise is now wholly self financing, and that its income contains no disguised subsidies. I have no time for UEFA -or FIFA, for that matter, (nor for the SFA, but I don't wish to lower debate to the level of music hall comedy)- although it seems to be on a hiding to nothing, here. Quite clearly it can't police the game, effectively, and equally clearly, the Clubs have, at present, little appetite for doing so themselves. For the Clubs to take charge would require removing themselves from UEFA's ambit, almost entirely, and coming to rather complex agreements on financing the game, involving salary caps, strictures relating investment to income, rules on state aid, and so forth. They would, in other words, need to move towards an American model of sports/business, which is, after all, successful..... It would be football, Compo, but not as we know it.

Young Paterson needs to go out on loan first & get experience before he can be considered for the first team squad

You don't have to sign up to BLM to subscribe to anti-racism.

I dont know why we bother to have a youth at up. Mcrorie is the last player I can remember to come through the ranks and we punted him out on loan.

Always will be Rangers for me. I like the fact that we are one of a small number of clubs in the UK (and indeed the world) that has no geographical reference in our name.

I think it is Glasgow Rangers as there are 'Rangers' team all over the world. Though I don't count fellow Americans in the mix, as they are absolutely clueless about anything 'Soccer' for the most part, here in the US we have the New York Rangers (Hockey), and Texas Rangers (Baseball). Even here in Little Rock our soccer team are the Little Rock Rangers. Over there you guys have Brora Rangers, Queen's Park...and many more. However, I always say my team are Rangers...and when they say "The Texas Rangers?" I say "NO...THEE Rangers" Cause there is only one.

Diversity is NOT the universally good thing portrayed in the modern myth. It tends to destroy social cohesion and is almost always a source of division and conflict. Diversity does not enrich or strengthen human society and, like socialism, is promoted purely as an ideological challenge to the established order. Do not swallow the fiction that diversity is good for you. Inclusion as a concept is simply meaningless tosh, which is probably why it has been selected by the left as a pillar of modernity and political correctness. The reason why @compo has trouble understanding this shite is it's not intended to be understood. It's an assemblage of labels and mantras that cannot be measured, cannot to defined and therefore cannot be challenged. In a nutshell, like most of the socialist agenda, it's total horseshit and Rangers would be best ignoring it and focussing on something worthwhile.