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

[Blue Valkyrie]

PL are about to announce the results of the Covid tests and sky sports tweeted about it......followed by a huge number of replies expecting Brighton to announce 20 + results.

Thanks, mainly the self interested Leeds and Liverpool trolls at it again I suppose.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...positive-coronavirus-tests-across-three-clubs

The Premier League has revealed that six players or staff tested positive for coronavirus in its first round of testing.

 

[blue-shifted]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...positive-coronavirus-tests-across-three-clubs

Maupay, Ali J, Alzate, Montoya, Propper and Burn?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Maupay, Ali J, Alzate, Montoya, Propper and Burn?

The 6 are at 3 different clubs.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Has any agreement been made for what happens if a club has a few positive tests from key players in the days before a match?

Does the game go ahead, just a case of bad luck - pick someone else?

 

[warlingham seagull]

6 from 3 clubs

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Has any agreement been made for what happens if a club has a few positive tests from key players in the days before a match?

Does the game go ahead, just a case of bad luck - pick someone else?

The clubs have only voted on stage 1 of training so far.

More votes to come on that sort of issue.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I don’t get the argument to cancel on medical grounds - these players are going to be safer and tested more than most in the country

Everything else (neutral grounds etc) yes.

Also 0.8 percent is pretty good no?

 

[Badger Boy]

I understand the number of positive results is interesting, but the number of tests should be just as well reported. 6 out of 748 - 0.8%. The full context matters there.

 

[Jim in the West]

I understand the number of positive results is interesting, but the number of tests should be just as well reported. 6 out of 748 - 0.8%. The full context matters there.

I guess the issue is more about the potential false negatives (which can be up to about 30%, apparently). If they can eliminate the false negatives logically it should be reasonably safe to play.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I understand the number of positive results is interesting, but the number of tests should be just as well reported. 6 out of 748 - 0.8%. The full context matters there.

I would ask why footballers and staff have a far greater incidence of coronavirus than that occurring in the wider community. Only a couple of days ago, we were told approx 1 in 400 had the disease. Why is there far higher incidence with footballers?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I would ask why footballers and staff have a far greater incidence of coronavirus than that occurring in the wider community. Only a couple of days ago, we were told approx 1 in 400 had the disease. Why is there far higher incidence with footballers?

Maybe this shows that if we tested everyone, the percentage would be higher?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Maybe this shows that if we tested everyone, the percentage would be higher?

Yes, that is a possible reason. Another may be that footballers have been bending the rules of lockdown a little more than most?

 

[Guinness Boy]

I would ask why footballers and staff have a far greater incidence of coronavirus than that occurring in the wider community. Only a couple of days ago, we were told approx 1 in 400 had the disease. Why is there far higher incidence with footballers?

I assume these are current tests and not antibody tests.

There is a very small window in which to catch cases. I have had a cough on and off for 8 weeks now but when I talked to 111 they said a test was pointless, because I would have needed to have been tested a few days before it started or up to a week in. I assume the days either side flex a bit but it sounds like there's a 10-14 day window.

Given that, I don't see how anyone can be confident in the 1 in 400 number in general population since today is the first day (millionairre footballers excepted of course) than anyone with symptoms could get a test. Before that it's been people in hospital or key workers with symptoms. When you are only testing those who present with symptoms or have jobs that are higher risk I have no idea how you can extrapolate to 1 in 400. It's guessing.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I suppose it's for each club to determine what they do.

But yes, if I owned one, I'd write to them all, saying you can have a refund however if you want a club to come back to, then accept a televised package giving you access to all home and away games.

Clearly they would have to work out the logistics with the set up. And if a TV company was used then they would want some sort of cut, however technology is improving. For example our youth games are streamed (no tv company involved so there are options) and the camerawork is perfectly good and the commentary is perfectly good. Employ a washed up ex pro to do a bit of half time analysis. Tie it in with some social media comments. It could work and the set up costs aren't ridiculous.

Now our club has a rich owner and a fancy training ground etc, it's very easy to forget the sick to the stomach feeling we all felt with we thought we were going to lose our club. Thousands are going through this at the moment (not as bad as the illness I know). I believe people will come together to support their clubs, rather than risk not having a club to come back to.

Got to be a better bet than just burning through the cash until it's gone.

I would have thought that would only be possible once the current tv contracts have expired. However it would be a good stick to hit Sky and BT with in the rebate discussions.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Yes, that is a possible reason. Another may be that footballers have been bending the rules of lockdown a little more than most?

No. Its just that the sample size is so small, it delivered a greater variation to the norm.

 

[Guinness Boy]

No. Its just that the sample size is so small, it delivered a greater variation to the norm.

But isn't the sample make up nationally hopelessly skewed? Tests only if you have symptoms and a key worker job or are practically dying? I doubt that a year one under grad wanting to major in natural therapies would come up with such a biased study selection.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

But isn't the sample make up nationally hopelessly skewed? Tests only if you have symptoms and a key worker job or are practically dying? I doubt that a year one under grad wanting to major in natural therapies would come up with such a biased study selection.

The 1 in 400 figure is derived from the ONS stat of 0.27%, it relates to the wider community, and is pretty reliable (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%).

But who knows?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

No. Its just that the sample size is so small, it delivered a greater variation to the norm.

How convenient.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Think I saw a news report saying they project the 1 in 400 figure would drop to 1 in 950 within 2 weeks. A good representation of the exponential decline which occurs on the way down the curve. All figures should be lower by the time this proposed Prem re-start comes round in a month's time.

I'm not sure everyone gets how swift an exponential decline is, but I appreciate many are concerned about second spikes etc.

Doesn't seem to be occurring in all the other countries in Europe which are successfully unlocking though. But I appreciate many feel comparisons with all these other countries are not valid, and that for some reason the UK is on its own unique doomsday trajectory regardless of the evidence of what is unfolding in every other country which is ahead of us on the curve..