[Football] Premier League / Football League attempts to finish the season

[darkwolf666]

Yes, 'where possible' being the operative word. Boris said yesterday 'with appropriate PPE, social distancing and other measures'. None of that is possible on a football field.

So footballers will need to take special measures. This will include daily testing (of the sort not available to Joe Public). What entitles them to that, other than their designated role as the Nation' Entertainment.

If I were someone at risk, in jeopardy because people not tested but infectious are ignoring social distancing, as is happening all over the country, and I didn't happen to like footy, let alone consider that footballers are the most very special of key workers, entitled to the very best screeing and indeed luxury isolation conditions for the duration of the end of the season, I would be monumentally displeased. I would call it a travesty and a disgrace.

Telling footballers to get back to work like everyone else? I seriously don't think you have quite grasped the nature of the situation

The problem now, as has been clearly demonstrated over the last few days, is that there is now a large percentage of people, including many on here who don't think this involves them.

They are a certain demographic, don't fall into the risk areas, so it's life as normal (well, new normal). This is even evident on here where people say the players are young and fit, so not at risk - hence they can damn well get back out there and entertain for the good of the nation!

Just as an aside, I wonder how many professional footballers are asthmatic or have unknown heart problems?*?

* Clearly we can't know answer to last question, as they are unknown problems, could be a bit late when it becomes apparent though!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

And if those projections turn out to be an under estimate then you will accept it is right to end Project Restart ?

Personally I think young healthy players are at very low risk. If the overall spread level is much lower I guess that would reduce the chance of an individual player catching it to some extent. It the overall level is a bit higher than projected come 12 June I still believe they would be at low risk.

In the same way that all the people Government are advising to return to work, Government believe are at low risk. And that's right now. It is projected to be lower in a month's time and based on the science and the fact we are now on the other side of the curve which is a point of exponential decrease, based upon my admittedly limited assessment I cannot see a realistic scenario where it will not be much lower by 12 June.

So your answer is no. The figures you quote are irrelevant because there are no circumstances under which you would want to be denied the right to watch a football match.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is twice weekly testing what has been recommended by doctors or just suggested by the PL?

Once you have the virus in your epithelium you can spread it. Testing twice a week will allow you to spread the virus for 2 or 3 days in the week that you become infected, before you are quarantined.

I appreciate there will be a sliding scale of restrictions based on various perceptions, and one assumes that if football is allowed to resume before other close-contact activities with strangers, someone will have estimated how many vulnerable members of footballers' families, of the families of other people inolved in the club's matchday and training activities, and the TV guys, and the hotel workers and folk transporting players around the country need to die before someone says 'this ain't worth it', and will have calculated that the number won't be reached. I'd like to see the calculation, personally. It is the calculation of the acceptable level of avoidable deaths.

If I were a PL footballer right now I'd consider myself a very well paid but entirely expendible performing monkey. I wouldn't be happy.

 

[dazzer6666]

Maty is on his way back......

https://twitter.com/MatyRyan/status/1260183902863478788?s=20

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The problem now, as has been clearly demonstrated over the last few days, is that there is now a large percentage of people, including many on here who don't think this involves them.

They are a certain demographic, don't fall into the risk areas, so it's life as normal (well, new normal). This is even evident on here where people say the players are young and fit, so not at risk - hence they can damn well get back out there and entertain for the good of the nation!

Just as an aside, I wonder how many professional footballers are asthmatic or have unknown heart problems?*?

* Clearly we can't know answer to last question, as they are unknown problems, could be a bit late when it becomes apparent though!

I think one of ours is, but I won't name him because I may be wrong and it'd be fake news.

 

[Acker79]

They will be tested twice a week though so the chances of a player having Covid-19 and playing in a game, being tested so regularly will be much lower, also their risk to the general population like petrol forecourts etc will probably be a lot lower by traning and being tested becuase they will be able to self isolate if the show up as having it even if asympotmatic whereas they currently wouldn't know if they have it when they are not playing/training but still might be filling up their car going to the supermarket etc or ignoring the lockdown like Grealish/Walker etc.

I don't dispute that regular testing should lead to identifying infectious people sooner, and allow them to isolate and reduce the chances of spreading infection. My point was mainly at the apparent sentiment that because they're young and healthy they are less likely to catch it - that isn't the case, they are less likely to die from it, but can still catch and pass it on. And also that just because the players are young and healthy, it doesn't mean all the people in the ground (whether for the match or the training ground) will be.

Having said that, regular testing also doesn't stop you catching it. A test only says whether you have it in the moment you are tested. How long these tests take to provide results is also important (and I genuinely don't know how long it takes for a result in a reliable test). If you have to wait 24 hours for a result, you'd have to isolate between being tested and receiving the results or else it's not much better than a placebo - you can still catch the virus between the test and receiving the result, and get a negative result, think you're fine and pass it on making the test a waste.

 

[rippleman]

Personally I think young healthy players are at very low risk. If the overall spread level is much lower I guess that would reduce the chance of an individual player catching it to some extent. It the overall level is a bit higher than projected come 12 June I still believe they would be at low risk.

I have read on here that at least three of the BHAFC squad had contracted the virus. Three out of 25 doesn't suggest that "young healthy players are at a very low risk".

But then I'm firmly in the camp that football shouldn't resume until it is safe to do so. Won't do **** all for my morale playing games behind closed doors when I have paid to watch most of those games, and knowing that I will now get screwed over paying to watch on PPV.

https://news.sky.com/story/danny-rose-hits-out-at-premier-league-return-plan-i-dont-give-a-f-about-the-nations-morale-11986898

#imwithdanny

 

[crodonilson]

I don't dispute that regular testing should lead to identifying infectious people sooner, and allow them to isolate and reduce the chances of spreading infection. My point was mainly at the apparent sentiment that because they're young and healthy they are less likely to catch it - that isn't the case, they are less likely to die from it, but can still catch and pass it on. And also that just because the players are young and healthy, it doesn't mean all the people in the ground (whether for the match or the training ground) will be.

Having said that, regular testing also doesn't stop you catching it. A test only says whether you have it in the moment you are tested. How long these tests take to provide results is also important (and I genuinely don't know how long it takes for a result in a reliable test). If you have to wait 24 hours for a result, you'd have to isolate between being tested and receiving the results or else it's not much better than a placebo - you can still catch the virus between the test and receiving the result, and get a negative result, think you're fine and pass it on making the test a waste.

Agreed.

My biggest concern with potentially restarting the season again is trusting footballers to adhere to social distancing away from their workplace, if they all could the chances of them catching it would be very low given that they live in affluent areas and should naturally be coming into contact with less people. I think there was a poll last week and it showed that those in the 18-30 were most likely to have broken the social distancing regulations and particularly men (I think it was about 30% who admitted this in the poll). If you can't trust footballers to do their bit away from the training grounds and matches then there is little chance for a succesful resumption but it's wrong then that many of them are coming out expressing their concern about the safety aspect of returning to work when many of them or their colleagues are flouting the rules. They can't have it all ways and if there is no resumption they have to accept with no income for the clubs they will need to take very substantial pay cuts, not just deferrals.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Restarting football behind closed doors will do absolutely nothing 'for my morale'.

 

[Barham's tash]

Personally I think young healthy players are at very low risk. If the overall spread level is much lower I guess that would reduce the chance of an individual player catching it to some extent. It the overall level is a bit higher than projected come 12 June I still believe they would be at low risk.

In the same way that all the people Government are advising to return to work, Government believe are at low risk. And that's right now. It is projected to be lower in a month's time and based on the science and the fact we are now on the other side of the curve which is a point of exponential decrease, based upon my admittedly limited assessment I cannot see a realistic scenario where it will not be much lower by 12 June.

It’s not all about whether a 26 year old professional sportsman with no underlying health conditions gets sick it’s whether a 48 yr old physio or member of security or referee or assistant or st john’s ambulance man or woman with an underlying health condition gets it or spreads it to members of their household.

There was an estimate that it will require at least 300 people per game to stage the matches. 20 teams at 150 people each per match (or equivalent) equals 3,000 people who could become infected from your fit and healthy person.

With R hovering around 1 that means you could reasonably expect each infected person to pass it on to 3 or 4 others. So that’s now potentially 12,000 unnecessary infections of which let’s assume 20% are in the vulnerable population so we’re back to 2,400 people who could die. Completely unnecessarily because ‘it will boost the mood’.

Now I’m not an idiot I know my figures are speculative at best but it really doesn’t take much of an extrapolation to get to them either.

Are you comfortable accepting that additional risk OR telling those club and ancillary staff that they must isolate en mass until the games are concluded? Frankly to me it’s a bloody ridiculous notion all so Jonny Average can sit back and watch wall to wall football with his mates whilst swigging his government paid for beers? Come on. Have a think about what really bloody matters atm.

 

[Jim in the West]

I don't dispute that regular testing should lead to identifying infectious people sooner, and allow them to isolate and reduce the chances of spreading infection. My point was mainly at the apparent sentiment that because they're young and healthy they are less likely to catch it - that isn't the case, they are less likely to die from it, but can still catch and pass it on. And also that just because the players are young and healthy, it doesn't mean all the people in the ground (whether for the match or the training ground) will be.

Having said that, regular testing also doesn't stop you catching it. A test only says whether you have it in the moment you are tested. How long these tests take to provide results is also important (and I genuinely don't know how long it takes for a result in a reliable test). If you have to wait 24 hours for a result, you'd have to isolate between being tested and receiving the results or else it's not much better than a placebo - you can still catch the virus between the test and receiving the result, and get a negative result, think you're fine and pass it on making the test a waste.

Elite athletes are MORE likely to be impacted by Covid-19, from what I've read - firstly because during strenuous exercise you breathe much more heavily, drawing air deep into the lungs. If that air contains the virus, you are at greater risk. Secondly, strenuous exercise negatively impacts the immune system. Athletes are more susceptible to the common cold and other viral infections because of this.

On top of this, the virus seems to be worse for people from a BAME heritage. I have seen figures which suggest that Black African men are 3.5x as likely to die as White men.

Over one third of EPL players are from a BAME background - once you add that to the greater risks that an athlete faces (and then put it in the context of a sport with a high degree of personal contact) I think players have every reason to be concerned. I'm sure these are the sort of issues the various club doctors are putting to the EPL.

 

[essbee1]

Restarting football behind closed doors will do absolutely nothing 'for my morale'.

Exactly.

And maybe if the EPL/FA had actually put some of their vast income to one side instead of pissing it up the wall in their
gravy train lifestyles for doing absolutely jack-sh*t while overseeing a total greed mentality, they might not be bleating so much
about the debt they will incur by not restarting. Because that's what it is all about: "£££££" and saving their own skins.

 

[crodonilson]

Exactly.

And maybe if the EPL/FA had actually put some of their vast income to one side instead of pissing it up the wall in their
gravy train lifestyles for doing absolutely jack-sh*t while overseeing a total greed mentality, they might not be bleating so much
about the debt they will incur by not restarting. Because that's what it is all about: "£££££" and saving their own skins.

Raising of morale was poorly worded, I doubt the restarting of football will raise anyones morale but it will provide a welcome distraction to many, not nearly as important as before but still of some value.

The debt 'they' incur is most often in paying the players the wages they demand to play in this league and for the individual clubs. If football cannot go on it's high time the footballers accepted they need to share the financial burden and take substantial pay cuts.

 

[studio150]

London Mayor opposes return of football currently

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/sadiq-khan-opposes-premier-league-plan-restart-london-june-a4438206.html

 

[neilbard]

Restarting football behind closed doors will do absolutely nothing 'for my morale'.

 

[Mellotron]

Raising morale might not be the right phrase but if it CAN be restarted to an acceptable level of safety I for one will be ****ING DELIGHTED to be talking about that missed chance in the 67th minute, or the logic behind bringing on Connolly when Jahanbakhsh is IMO a bigger goal threat, or that ball from Dunk out to Trossard in the first half.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

London Mayor opposes return of football currently

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/sadiq-khan-opposes-premier-league-plan-restart-london-june-a4438206.html

Well, he seems opposed to it taking place in London

 

[Pavilionaire]

The only reason they're desperate to finish the season is money, and I find that quite depressing. In the past we were told that football is nothing without the fans - that is obviously not the case, as we are about to see.

If these nine games are played out behind closed doors and sporting destiny is decided in near silence then a little part of what makes football special will have died.

 

[Seaber]

Once you have the virus in your epithelium you can spread it. Testing twice a week will allow you to spread the virus for 2 or 3 days in the week that you become infected, before you are quarantined.

I appreciate there will be a sliding scale of restrictions based on various perceptions, and one assumes that if football is allowed to resume before other close-contact activities with strangers, someone will have estimated how many vulnerable members of footballers' families, of the families of other people inolved in the club's matchday and training activities, and the TV guys, and the hotel workers and folk transporting players around the country need to die before someone says 'this ain't worth it', and will have calculated that the number won't be reached. I'd like to see the calculation, personally. It is the calculation of the acceptable level of avoidable deaths.

If I were a PL footballer right now I'd consider myself a very well paid but entirely expendible performing monkey. I wouldn't be happy.

Yes, that's what my thinking is.

I wouldn't want to play a contact sport with up to fifteen team mates, and up to sixteen opposition players, in close proximity to officials, and both sets of backroom staff, who may have been tested the day before yesterday, and a chance that test has given an incorrect result.

It's just so stupid.

 

[Napper]

London Mayor opposes return of football currently

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/sadiq-khan-opposes-premier-league-plan-restart-london-june-a4438206.html

Aside from his opinion , what a nob jockey that bloke is