Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone?" Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone?" Shag I believe Ciddy are buying up vaccines for all their supporters to ensure they are inoculated before attending the Emptyhad. Last I heard they had over 100 vaccines ready to go. The club issued a statement saying that 100 jabs could be seen as excessive but they wanted to ensure all supporters were jabbed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Shag I believe Ciddy are buying up vaccines for all their supporters to ensure they are inoculated before attending the Emptyhad. Last I heard they had over 100 vaccines ready to go. The club issued a statement saying that 100 jabs could be seen as excessive but they wanted to ensure all supporters were jabbed." Boom boom! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Zambia ?" Zambia? Indeed! No idea where that error correction came from! Note to self... Proof read before pressing post. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Shag I believe Ciddy are buying up vaccines for all their supporters to ensure they are inoculated before attending the Emptyhad. Last I heard they had over 100 vaccines ready to go. The club issued a statement saying that 100 jabs could be seen as excessive but they wanted to ensure all supporters were jabbed." Quick irrelevant question How many seasons is it now since ManUre finished above City  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia" Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia" The app didn't seem unsafe to me when I registered... (I studied cybersecurity and user authentication as part of my previous job). As for checking 70k+, if they've got time to check tickets on the way in then they've got time to check a quick flash of an app or letter, surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? " From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia The app didn't seem unsafe to me when I registered... (I studied cybersecurity and user authentication as part of my previous job). As for checking 70k+, if they've got time to check tickets on the way in then they've got time to check a quick flash of an app or letter, surely? " Don't call me Shirley... Yes you'd think so... Just wonder how they didn't manage to do that at Wembley for 60k fans for our euro match and a showcase test event? I'm guessing it's not so straight forward or they'd have easily done so there? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." " So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone?" It'll last 1 season and when they realize they have lost revenue from season ticket holders they will remove these restrictive measures. All about money in the end | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? " It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It nonsense effectively you outside for 90minutes will they be offering refunds to season ticket holders who don’t or can’t meet criteria " Anyone who has ever been to Old Trafford knows that at least half the stadium does not spend the whole time stood outside. Massive, congested queues at half time for drinks and food, loads of people hanging around indoors near the food kiosks before kick-off, then when you are outdoors you're still squashed in like sardines by the tiny seats. Not to mention the fact that most supporters arrive by public transport, so it's not just about when they arrive at/are in the ground, but when they are crammed in on buses, trams, trains and coaches too. Measures are sensible and I welcome them. Those who don't have a smartphone will have plenty of time to prepare and older supporters/season ticket holders will no doubt receive advice from the club, those who simply don't want to abide won't end up going. On that note I think we can stop with the faux-outrage now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them" You're talking about a different app  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app "or at least using the app for a different reason | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app "There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users? So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone?" The are probably pre planning for what is going to come with the proposed vaccine passport for large venue attendance beginning in September…..in which they think football grounds will be classed as large venues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service"Lol ok | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok"Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system? So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st.... I don't see how that's a laughing matter | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter"I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia" I'm guessing here but as they have around 50k ST holders it'll be something they'll ask for in advance and once only, from then every game is ticketed so I imagine you'd have to submit proof at the time of purchase. I could be wrong of course and it is United so plenty of room for then to fuck up it, I've experienced their organisation skills when I used to go! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware."Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken) So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money "Glad you think so. It exists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists. "Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done. It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle"My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all. If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken."And yet you tried to belittle my opinion which was purely based on the gov and it's ability to waste our money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken.
And yet you tried to belittle my opinion which was purely based on the gov and it's ability to waste our money "I found your discussion of the "pingdemic" inappropriate in context given that we're not talking about the same thing, suggesting that you're not aware of some of the pertinent details. Hence my first comment - it's a different app. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money "Do you mean the certificate of inoculation that I can already easily access from within the NHS app? That one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money "They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging. The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken.
And yet you tried to belittle my opinion which was purely based on the gov and it's ability to waste our money
I found your discussion of the "pingdemic" inappropriate in context given that we're not talking about the same thing, suggesting that you're not aware of some of the pertinent details. Hence my first comment - it's a different app. "I didn't know of a 2nd app... how many people do you think also don't know.. or do you think I am the only person because you know so everybody must...? So the mention of "the app" and not "the new vaccine passport app" led me to believe it was the same app that has caused mass panic and unnecessary isolations across the country was kind of valid. Thank you for the confirmation of a 2nd app but you didn't need to be all passive aggressive about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging.
The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time.
"One afternoon of coding time!!! 
Possibly only if they used Stack Overflow (if you know you know ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging.
The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time.
"Thank you that has cleared up a lot of my unknowing on the matter, I haddnt been aware of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It nonsense effectively you outside for 90minutes will they be offering refunds to season ticket holders who don’t or can’t meet criteria Anyone who has ever been to Old Trafford knows that at least half the stadium does not spend the whole time stood outside. Massive, congested queues at half time for drinks and food, loads of people hanging around indoors near the food kiosks before kick-off, then when you are outdoors you're still squashed in like sardines by the tiny seats. Not to mention the fact that most supporters arrive by public transport, so it's not just about when they arrive at/are in the ground, but when they are crammed in on buses, trams, trains and coaches too. Measures are sensible and I welcome them. Those who don't have a smartphone will have plenty of time to prepare and older supporters/season ticket holders will no doubt receive advice from the club, those who simply don't want to abide won't end up going. On that note I think we can stop with the faux-outrage now. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them" That's a different app - there's this NHS app and the NHS Covid 19 app, which uses Bluetooth etc to determine if you're near to an infected person. The NHS app is the 1 used to display your vaccination details, ie which vaccine and when given. This is the one used for entry checks to places, provided as a screen display and QR code. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them That's a different app - there's this NHS app and the NHS Covid 19 app, which uses Bluetooth etc to determine if you're near to an infected person. The NHS app is the 1 used to display your vaccination details, ie which vaccine and when given. This is the one used for entry checks to places, provided as a screen display and QR code. " Cool had it cleared up now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging.
The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time.
One afternoon of coding time!!!
Possibly only if they used Stack Overflow (if you know you know ) "Not going to take very long to add one more page on top of code that already has all the features for secure delivery of the raw information from NHS systems to your phone. The largest parts of the job would have been specifying the requirement, verifying operation, and the change control to roll out the new version. The actual coding would be a relatively minor task. And yes i know Stack Overflow (yet to find any useful information on there), my job involves software development including network protocols, kernel drivers, real time device control, communication between heterogeneous CPUs both tightly coupled on a single board and distributed across a local area network, creating complete software stacks for small auxiliary control processors, and yes, the occasional bit of webpage hacking. That's just in the last twelve months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them That's a different app - there's this NHS app and the NHS Covid 19 app, which uses Bluetooth etc to determine if you're near to an infected person. The NHS app is the 1 used to display your vaccination details, ie which vaccine and when given. This is the one used for entry checks to places, provided as a screen display and QR code. Cool had it cleared up now "
It's easy for us all to have differing awareness and use of most things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging.
The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time.
One afternoon of coding time!!!
Possibly only if they used Stack Overflow (if you know you know )
Not going to take very long to add one more page on top of code that already has all the features for secure delivery of the raw information from NHS systems to your phone. The largest parts of the job would have been specifying the requirement, verifying operation, and the change control to roll out the new version. The actual coding would be a relatively minor task.
And yes i know Stack Overflow (yet to find any useful information on there), my job involves software development including network protocols, kernel drivers, real time device control, communication between heterogeneous CPUs both tightly coupled on a single board and distributed across a local area network, creating complete software stacks for small auxiliary control processors, and yes, the occasional bit of webpage hacking. That's just in the last twelve months."Don't knock SO too much lol it's gotten me through many HackerRank and LeetCode challenges 
I'm not doubting it was quick. Just saying one afternoon is probably a bit optimistic. For me anyway. I'm guessing an expert like you would get it done in 5 minutes, and that's including the HTML and CSS | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
They already had an application that is used for checking your medical records, ordering repeat prescriptions, making appointments to see your GP and suchlike NHS matters. Nothing to do with the covid tracing and pinging.
The NHS simply made a small update to this existing application to add a page that displays vaccination status without showing other details of medical history. I agree that if it had been government driven it would probably have cost £100 million, straight into the pockets of some consultancy firm owned by a cabinet ministers brother; however this was implemented under the direction of the NHS, piggybacked on top of the existing system for secure access to your NHS records, and probably involved no more than one afternoon of coding time.
One afternoon of coding time!!!
Possibly only if they used Stack Overflow (if you know you know )
Not going to take very long to add one more page on top of code that already has all the features for secure delivery of the raw information from NHS systems to your phone. The largest parts of the job would have been specifying the requirement, verifying operation, and the change control to roll out the new version. The actual coding would be a relatively minor task.
And yes i know Stack Overflow (yet to find any useful information on there), my job involves software development including network protocols, kernel drivers, real time device control, communication between heterogeneous CPUs both tightly coupled on a single board and distributed across a local area network, creating complete software stacks for small auxiliary control processors, and yes, the occasional bit of webpage hacking. That's just in the last twelve months.
Don't knock SO too much lol it's gotten me through many HackerRank and LeetCode challenges
I'm not doubting it was quick. Just saying one afternoon is probably a bit optimistic. For me anyway. I'm guessing an expert like you would get it done in 5 minutes, and that's including the HTML and CSS "No you're quite right that it's not trivial. However if you have the complete framework there already from existing pages of an app, it's much easier to just fix the specific details for the new information without having to re-invent any wheels. I am of course assuming that the existing client/server protocols were sufficient to handle the newly required info without any change, and that the code base libraries included all relevant features. Much of the scope of the job would depend upon whether the requirement was sensibly specified by someone with awareness of the existing application and its capabilities, or whether it was written by a politician | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Shag I believe Ciddy are buying up vaccines for all their supporters to ensure they are inoculated before attending the Emptyhad. Last I heard they had over 100 vaccines ready to go. The club issued a statement saying that 100 jabs could be seen as excessive but they wanted to ensure all supporters were jabbed. Quick irrelevant question How many seasons is it now since ManUre finished above City "Granted a few years but Ciddy are not a stadia filler..........they shelved plans to up the capacity of the Emptyhad? There is only one team that constantly draws capacity Covid testing and it ain’t the Ciddy boys! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken."Wouldn't it have been more helpful to say which app is which rather than this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken.
Wouldn't it have been more helpful to say which app is which rather than this?"If that's to me I would have needed to know a 2nd app existed beforehand as far as I was aware the passport was an addition to the nhs track and trace not the general nhs app. So when I got told it wasn't the T&T app without any detail I assumed it was a whole new app and my previous knowledge of it being an addition to any app was wrong.... Shit we learn along the way huh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should have joined France, Germany and the other countries that have introduced the small extra restrictions on gatherings at bars, clubs etc. Any delay also delays the help it can provide. Whilst outdoors is less risky, congregating people present the potential for exposure to the virus. The numbers of infected people needs to be reduced, before autumn, when schools, unis etc return and people return to spending more time indoors. It's just vaccines or restrictions that we have as our tools to reduce the impact and costs for us all, as I keep saying. There's no magical solution, when we need to prevent a virus that is spreading because of our behaviour. If your behaviour isn't helping us to beat this, then you'll need to change it or be subject to restrictions that limit the danger that you are adding to society " Could not have put it better myself. Well said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? It'll last 1 season and when they realize they have lost revenue from season ticket holders they will remove these restrictive measures. All about money in the end" Time will tell. Its all about whether the fan wants to see his team play badly enough. I wonder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia Where's the evidence that the NHS app is unsafe? From the gov website... "However, no software or application can be completely secure. If you have any concerns that your account could have been compromised (for example, someone could have discovered your password), follow the instructions on NHS App help and support." So there's no evidence that specifically it has a vulnerability that marks it out as any different to any other app, ie that it's not very safe? It may be 100% secure and let's be honest it's not a backdoor to your bank details. But the app is just poorly designed and has no scope for simple things such as walls and floors... we've had 28 out of 37 staff told to isolate due to their neighbour that they have never spent any time around but have a room that shares a wall to them You're talking about a different app
There's a new nhs app that uses what to track and trace your movement and proximity to other users?
So the gov have now wasted how much money on a faulty service
Lol ok
Are you saying the "pingdemic" didn't happen and wasn't caused by a faulty system?
So spending the millions on that was a wise move right? And then making a second app which again would not have been made for free rather than upgrading and fixing the 1st....
I don't see how that's a laughing matter
I'm saying if you want to think whatever it is you think, go right ahead, but it's a different app. This one doesn't ping at all as far as I'm aware.
Ive worked in software development, updating the already existing app to have a certificate of inoculation would be 2/3 or more of the cost of creating a new app to do the same thing. (I know that sentence is broken)
So yeah waste of money, just like all of the stupid moves government's are making with our money
Glad you think so.
It exists.
Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done.
It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle
My only point here is that the app in question has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called pingdemic. Nothing at all.
If you think I agree with the government's policies or money spent then you're mistaken.
Wouldn't it have been more helpful to say which app is which rather than this?"My first comment was that it's a different app. Apologies, yes, I got frustrated, but I don't think my clarification of the issue at the beginning warranted what followed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone?" I always laugh at this comment, as if "older " people are sat at home with no technology at all, even my MIL of 87 has a mobile now. Either way they can get a printed out copy if they need it to go anywhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP" Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... " With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... " I swing one way then another, one minute I think like you , the companies are making the decisions themselves and it is for the safety of everyone and hopefully will mean stadiums will be able to keep going this season , but the next I think but what about choice for the people who don't want vaccinating. I think it can be done though, I know there will be teething problems but it will just mean people need to get there a bit earlier to show the phone plus their ticket | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. " if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Absolutely disgusting I hope the are refunding those season ticket holders who don’t wish to have their vaccination status know and also compensating they. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats all well and good, and dont follow football, but have had my jabs and the nhs app, my jabs dont show up on it tho" and are not for thousands of people. Read the reviews about the app don’t work as it should | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do " I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats all well and good, and dont follow football, but have had my jabs and the nhs app, my jabs dont show up on it tho" Which App have you got? It’s not the Track and Trace App. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do " I'm double jabbed, went out clubbing at the weekend. Me and my friends all took a test before we left the house. Took a test before going out for dinner last night and it was negative. Will be taking a further test in a few days just to double check. Also still wearing mask on public transport, in taxis and anywhere that requires me to (not possible to wear them in a club obviously) It's fine if you think some double jabbed people don't care, aren't testing and are just generally throwing caution to the wind. But don't lump all of us into that statement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats all well and good, and dont follow football, but have had my jabs and the nhs app, my jabs dont show up on it tho" Is it the right App? Does it show your other details that is registered with your Docs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you" Did we spend 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared? Where did you get this information from? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not questioning it's existence just it's necessity... if I have paid for a new car I don't think i really need to pay more for a 2nd car that has less features, which if the new app isn't a track and trace that's what they've done. It's another hole to throw money in, like the Dyson mask debacle" The ‘NHS APP’ was around before the ‘NHS COVID 19’ app. My phone uses fingerprint access. Both apps have the vaccine status available. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you" No, there would have been a lot lot more deaths. If you go look at any graph of the covid deaths over the last 18 months, you will see that it's got steep rises, followed by slow falls. The _only_ thing that stopped those steep rises from just carrying on upwards was lockdowns. The big tragedy is that in each case, if we had locked down earlier the fall would have started earlier, the lockdown could have been much shorter because the death rate wouldn't have so far to fall, and many thousands of people would not have died. On the first lockdown the downward slope is about 4 times slower than the upwards, so if we had locked down even one week earlier, we could have shortened the lockdown by a full month and saved maybe 20 thousand lives. If not for the mask mandates, social distancing restrictions, successive lockdowns, and eventually vaccinations, then sometime round about June 2020 we would have reached the point of saturation where almost every person in the UK would have been exposed to covid, every hospital bed would be filled by covid patients. The low death rate of approximately 1% that can be achieved when those that need it can get hospital care would have risen to 5% or higher, also every person needing hospital treatment for any other reason would not have received it. Most of the country's infrastructure would have closed down as there would be too many critical staff being ill. With the resulting chaos, we could expect most households to have no running water or power, sewerage systems to fail, diseases such as cholera to spread, and the food supply chain to break down. There would be a certainty of at least 1% of the population dead just from covid, but several times as much as this again from all the other failures of normal societal systems. My best guess - between 1 million and 10 million dead. None of this did happen though, precisely and only because of masks, distancing, lockdowns, and eventual vaccines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you" Sources ? That 99.9973 seems to be u20s based on illinois. (At least from a quick Google) of a very specific number. And whenever I've looked at what counts as orexaiting conditions it includes things like obesity and iirc learning difficulties ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. " It's not going to be perfect or even close. But reducing the risk of lockdown by half for very little cost (other than a few peed off fans) seems good business sense to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thats all well and good, and dont follow football, but have had my jabs and the nhs app, my jabs dont show up on it tho Which App have you got? It’s not the Track and Trace App. " no its the nhs app | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you" Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat" Yes and no. Also, neither yes nor no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's cat" Sandra’s pussy rings a bell? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do " That’s a huge generalisation, and assumption. I’m double jabbed and test twice weekly, I’ve also not been to a pub, a restaurant, or indeed a football match since they were closed in the first wave of restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good to see football clubs taking a lead on public health matters. Out of interest, why would it surprise you to see a massive multinational business like Man U on the World Economic Forum?" What about other vax against other infectious diseases huh...TB, measles, mumps, rubella, hep, polio, hiv all much more deadlier. Or is Covid the only disease now lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good to see football clubs taking a lead on public health matters. Out of interest, why would it surprise you to see a massive multinational business like Man U on the World Economic Forum? What about other vax against other infectious diseases huh...TB, measles, mumps, rubella, hep, polio, hiv all much more deadlier. Or is Covid the only disease now lol" Why is it that we don’t have a worldwide pandemic in measles, TB, rubella, polio etc. do you think? Also, if you think you can catch HIV or hepatitis from sitting next to someone who has one of those diseases then you really are a lost cause. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good to see football clubs taking a lead on public health matters. Out of interest, why would it surprise you to see a massive multinational business like Man U on the World Economic Forum? What about other vax against other infectious diseases huh...TB, measles, mumps, rubella, hep, polio, hiv all much more deadlier. Or is Covid the only disease now lol" Possibly because we don't have 25 thousand new cases of those appearing every day? That for TB, measles, mump, rubella, hep, polio successful vaccine campaigns have been carried out over many years so that we no longer get epidemic of them? That the only one from your list that we don't have a vaccine for, you can't catch just by somebody coughing next to you while you're queueing to get into the football ground? Or maybe it's all those others that are the actual killers going round, maybe there isn't really any such thing as covid, maybe it's just something that has been dreamed up as a political scam and every single country on earth has gone along with so as to cause inconvenience to football spectators... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The app didn't seem unsafe to me when I registered... (I studied cybersecurity and user authentication as part of my previous job). As for checking 70k+, if they've got time to check tickets on the way in then they've got time to check a quick flash of an app or letter, surely? " With respect. If it has been studied then a deeper more meaningful technical explanation can be provided than ‘it looked a but dodgey, trust me guv’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Specifically ManUtd can kiss my balls. I wouldn’t watch them if my life depended on it. Stand up if you hate Man U " Really........you are supposed to be an adult! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you" Unfortunately, there have been significant deaths due to Covid and many thousands more who have had organ damage and failures - these may be permanent and be the reason that those people don't survive a future problem that comes along. Possibly they could get reinfected, with the same organs, even their brain, getting injured. But Covid's serious illness and injury is also not complete, unless we include Long Covid. You didn't mention, nor include it in your statistics - I assume because your post is reminiscent of all the social media/antivax sites and their memes, that try hard to downplay Covid. The reality and the solutions that we have are very different to the angry propaganda stories they keep trying to force us all to conform with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Unfortunately, there have been significant deaths due to Covid and many thousands more who have had organ damage and failures - these may be permanent and be the reason that those people don't survive a future problem that comes along. Possibly they could get reinfected, with the same organs, even their brain, getting injured. But Covid's serious illness and injury is also not complete, unless we include Long Covid. You didn't mention, nor include it in your statistics - I assume because your post is reminiscent of all the social media/antivax sites and their memes, that try hard to downplay Covid. The reality and the solutions that we have are very different to the angry propaganda stories they keep trying to force us all to conform with. " Can you explain a mass vaccination program when there is a 98.7% recovery rate, from Covid, is being reported by the government? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am an adult and I hate Man U. My opinion so respetc it! " Why would you hate a football team? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are clearly missing the irony. " You have lost me......... But you seem to hate a football team so crack on! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are clearly missing the irony. You have lost me......... But you seem to hate a football team so crack on!" Or am I being ironic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Unfortunately, there have been significant deaths due to Covid and many thousands more who have had organ damage and failures - these may be permanent and be the reason that those people don't survive a future problem that comes along. Possibly they could get reinfected, with the same organs, even their brain, getting injured. But Covid's serious illness and injury is also not complete, unless we include Long Covid. You didn't mention, nor include it in your statistics - I assume because your post is reminiscent of all the social media/antivax sites and their memes, that try hard to downplay Covid. The reality and the solutions that we have are very different to the angry propaganda stories they keep trying to force us all to conform with. Can you explain a mass vaccination program when there is a 98.7% recovery rate, from Covid, is being reported by the government?" You can look at the published scientific evidence, as I do, rather than follow government announcements, which often differ a little. As mentioned in that post you quoted, the damage is far, far greater than just those many people who have lost their lives - Organ damage and failure and, Long Covid These are amongst them. In 18 months we have health professionals around the world, including many medical trials, that have researched treatments for Covid. These have helped to save lives in the millions, including Dexamethasone in the Recovery trial - a gold standard research trial, that demonstrated significantly reduced mortality rates at 28 days following treatment. Those treatments, we can all gratefully welcome, as they have considerably improved the survival rates. They don't lessen the significance of the damage this virus causes though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Unfortunately, there have been significant deaths due to Covid and many thousands more who have had organ damage and failures - these may be permanent and be the reason that those people don't survive a future problem that comes along. Possibly they could get reinfected, with the same organs, even their brain, getting injured. But Covid's serious illness and injury is also not complete, unless we include Long Covid. You didn't mention, nor include it in your statistics - I assume because your post is reminiscent of all the social media/antivax sites and their memes, that try hard to downplay Covid. The reality and the solutions that we have are very different to the angry propaganda stories they keep trying to force us all to conform with. Can you explain a mass vaccination program when there is a 98.7% recovery rate, from Covid, is being reported by the government?" Another point - the levels of impact upon our society were very severe. This included hospitalisations from Covid overwhelming the NHS, jeopardising treatments for other conditions. Waiting lists are now phenomenal and may take some years to clear. We've just had restrictions or vaccines to help us to recover from the damage this has done in our lifestyles. Infection levels have more recently got very high but the high uptake of the vaccines has ensured that hospitalisations and deaths have been suppressed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Back to the OP Yes please. Imo, this is where it gets interesting even without government intervention. Many industries have been fucked over by lock down. Including football. So I suspect many companies will look to do things that help reduce the risk of it happening again. Or create a narrative as to why they are exempt. If it can be shown that only allowing vaccinated ppl into OT meant OT was not a vector of transmission, maybe, just maybe, football won't be locked down... With between only 40%-60% efficacy for transmission of the delta variant I’m afraid any idea that having only vaccinated people in any locations will be misplaced. if anything all the double jabbed have a false sense of security they have as much chance of catching / passing on covid as anyone who has had covid. They are not testing ignoring warning signs and if anything more likely to be spreaders. Vaccinated or unvaccinated should not determine what a person can or can not do I know the backlash from the fearful I'll get here and tbh I don't care. But you do realize if we never did a single day of lockdown, never spent 7 billion to Dyson to make masks that never appeared, never had a mask mandate to start with and the only vaccine was still being tested for the 5 year minimum requirement... We would have still had the same number of deaths as we have had right now. Go look at the actual excess death rates of all deaths in the UK over the last 50 years.. we had a very small increase on deaths. Your survival chances as an adult under 65 with no pre existing health conditions is 99.9973% if you rounded it to the nearest whole number it's 100%. So the scaremongering has done nothing but destroy industry and pull kids out of school so that the elderly and infirm would die either way. Good job kid can of to you Unfortunately, there have been significant deaths due to Covid and many thousands more who have had organ damage and failures - these may be permanent and be the reason that those people don't survive a future problem that comes along. Possibly they could get reinfected, with the same organs, even their brain, getting injured. But Covid's serious illness and injury is also not complete, unless we include Long Covid. You didn't mention, nor include it in your statistics - I assume because your post is reminiscent of all the social media/antivax sites and their memes, that try hard to downplay Covid. The reality and the solutions that we have are very different to the angry propaganda stories they keep trying to force us all to conform with. Can you explain a mass vaccination program when there is a 98.7% recovery rate, from Covid, is being reported by the government? Another point - the levels of impact upon our society were very severe. This included hospitalisations from Covid overwhelming the NHS, jeopardising treatments for other conditions. Waiting lists are now phenomenal and may take some years to clear. We've just had restrictions or vaccines to help us to recover from the damage this has done in our lifestyles. Infection levels have more recently got very high but the high uptake of the vaccines has ensured that hospitalisations and deaths have been suppressed. " We can quote figures and statistics all day long. There is no denying this is, hopefully, a once in a generation event. From the uk perspective it would be totally unacceptable for the government to defend the scenes in northern Italy at the start of this pandemic. Ten years of underfunded social services could not cope so draconian measures were enacted. The situation could have been ameliorated by proper planning and investment in a decent health care response. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. Zambia" Yes. I also wonder the same like, how do they have time to scan everyone in and also what if the wifi doesnt work as it must be a big strain on the network there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It nonsense effectively you outside for 90minutes will they be offering refunds to season ticket holders who don’t or can’t meet criteria " Yes. I also wonder the same about that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. ZambiaYes. I also wonder the same like, how do they have time to scan everyone in and also what if the wifi doesnt work as it must be a big strain on the network there." They may work it a number of ways Shag, including similarly to flights, where people upload official government confirmation info, in advance of being given permission to attend. Final checks may be made, similarly to check-in agents doing that, to permit or deny boarding to the seats. The tickets have a good markup, so I'm sure they can afford to resource it. 
Fans attending could use their mobile data to retrieve their QR code. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have put out a press release that they will only accept people into their games that have been jabbed, the test and you need the app to prove this if you are going to the game, checks will not take place against leeds this saturday, but will be implemented in future home games, meantime they urge people to get ready for the change. I was also surprised as I found out that man utd are on the world economic forum site. What do you think of it and will it be the same with the other clubs? What happens if one doesnt have a smart phone or an older person who might not have a phone? Mixed thoughts really. Predominantly because I don't believe they will be able to check 70k every home game plus they need to provide those who as you either don't have the technology or don't want to have their medical info on an unsafe app. ZambiaYes. I also wonder the same like, how do they have time to scan everyone in and also what if the wifi doesnt work as it must be a big strain on the network there. They may work it a number of ways Shag, including similarly to flights, where people upload official government confirmation info, in advance of being given permission to attend. Final checks may be made, similarly to check-in agents doing that, to permit or deny boarding to the seats. The tickets have a good markup, so I'm sure they can afford to resource it.
Fans attending could use their mobile data to retrieve their QR code. "Season ticket holders will be easier, as the bulk of the work could be done just once, including at the time of ticket renewal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
