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

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Sounds like tomorrow's meeting will now be about confirming the fixture list and TV coverage for games.

Shit just got a bit more real, football wise.

Play it like a kids six-a-side, loads of games all backed up to each other held over one weekend!!! (Or, maybe not!)

 

[Napper]

Clubs have unanimously voted to return to contract training

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11995373/premier-league-clubs-approve-return-to-contact-training-in-another-boost-for-project-restart

Great news.

99.5% tests negative. Risks low

Lets get it on + have something else to focus on.

 

[Weststander]

Sounds like tomorrow's meeting will now be about confirming the fixture list and TV coverage for games.

Shit just got a bit more real, football wise.

19th June start date mooted.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Ha ha, I mean our away games are a lot easier than our home games.

Sorry, too much time on my hands. Couldn’t resist !

 

[Mellotron]

Germany haven’t had any further cases since the first few weeks.

Over here, we’ve seen 6 cases in round 1 of testing, and 1 (I believe?) in the second round.

It’s almost like having a really strongly controlled and monitored regular testing system makes a massive difference after a couple of weeks or so...

 

[Mellotron]

I think a big question - in a purely footballing sense, there are of course much bigger questions out there at the moment! - is whether Watford can successfully convince Deeney to return by start of season.

He’s a huge talisman for them as a club. However, the nature of his situation means I can’t derive any pleasure from his absence.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I think a big question - in a purely footballing sense, there are of course much bigger questions out there at the moment! - is whether Watford can successfully convince Deeney to return by start of season.

He’s a huge talisman for them as a club. However, the nature of his situation means I can’t derive any pleasure from his absence.

I would suggest that there is a big difference between him choosing to miss some training sessions vs choosing to miss taking part in a match. Plus by 19 June things will be on more solid ground- testing and protocols more established. I predict he will be on the pitch for the first game.

 

[Mellotron]

I would suggest that there is a big difference between him choosing to miss some training sessions vs choosing to miss taking part in a match. Plus by 19 June things will be on more solid ground- testing and protocols more established. I predict he will be on the pitch for the first game.

I’m guessing this is correct. They will ask him to train privately and join them as late as necessary, if that’s what he wants.

 

[Acker79]

Germany haven’t had any further cases since the first few weeks.

Over here, we’ve seen 6 cases in round 1 of testing, and 1 (I believe?) in the second round.

There were two in the second round (from over 900 tests). Only one has been publicly identified - Aaron Ramsdale who reportedly tested negative 3 days before his positive test. That makes it difficult to say if he caught it before returning or after returning due to incubation periods, though he has said he believes it was caught while shopping rather than training, and it's most likely, but it should cause at least a little bit of hesitation about getting carried away with the negative tests.

It’s almost like having a really strongly controlled and monitored regular testing system makes a massive difference after a couple of weeks or so...

It's positive, but after one week it is too soon to draw a conclusion. The first round of testing on day 0 of return to football will be indicative of the effectiveness of the lockdown, and can't be used to make any statement about the safety of the return.

Testing day 2 was within the window of the incubation period of the virus after the first test, positive tests could be in people infected just before the return or just after.

We'd need at a bare minimum one more week, ideally a couple of weeks, to draw any reliable conclusion.

 

[Mellotron]

There were two in the second round (from over 900 tests). Only one has been publicly identified - Aaron Ramsdale who reportedly tested negative 3 days before his positive test. That makes it difficult to say if he caught it before returning or after returning due to incubation periods, though he has said he believes it was caught while shopping rather than training, and it's most likely, but it should cause at least a little bit of hesitation about getting carried away with the negative tests.




It's positive, but after one week it is too soon to draw a conclusion. The first round of testing on day 0 of return to football will be indicative of the effectiveness of the lockdown, and can't be used to make any statement about the safety of the return.

Testing day 2 was within the window of the incubation period of the virus after the first test, positive tests could be in people infected just before the return or just after.

We'd need at a bare minimum one more week, ideally a couple of weeks, to draw any reliable conclusion.

I agree that we cannot “conclude” anything fully as of yet - except in a Germany where we can, and here appears to be heading in the same direction. That is all. Nor am I getting “carried away”.

It is completely logical that a very heavy test track and trace system will by and large quash infections rates in a control group.

This was all my point was in the first place, backed by the science. It is likely that footballers are far safer than we general public are right now.

 

[southdownswolf]

I think a big question - in a purely footballing sense, there are of course much bigger questions out there at the moment! - is whether Watford can successfully convince Deeney to return by start of season.

He’s a huge talisman for them as a club. However, the nature of his situation means I can’t derive any pleasure from his absence.

I would imagine that if Watford go 3-4 test days without any cases, he will be asked to go into training.
Until they have done that I can't see him going in.

 

[Acker79]

I agree that we cannot “conclude” anything fully as of yet - except in a Germany where we can, and here appears to be heading in the same direction. That is all. Nor am I getting “carried away”.

It is completely logical that a very heavy test track and trace system will by and large quash infections rates in a control group.

This was all my point was in the first place, backed by the science. It is likely that footballers are far safer than we general public are right now.

A Germany that has acted more decisively and thus had a lesser impact in general cases. A Germany that didn't equivocate on lockdown, and were in a much better place to start their return, and as such are not an entirely reliable model to base a comparison on.

Football training is not a closed system. We only need to look at Ramsdale to see that - negative at the start of the week, now positive, carryng an inection from outside training into the training environment for three days. Footballers are not going to be isolated from the rest of the world, they will still be vulnerable to infections away from the training ground, and are at risk of bringing that infection into the training ground. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, testing does not stop you getting the virus. It could improve your chances of reducing the spread of the virus by learning of your infection sooner, but there are vulnerabilities in the system - so far results have been the day after the test leaving a window for you to interact with teammates/coaches/the environment and spread the virus before discovering your results are positive and you need to isolate. There is a gap between tests where infection can show up (see Ramsdale) again leading to the spread of the virus because a test earlier in the week was negative and people get over confident. That also ignores the reliability of the testing, which has been questioned with scientific research showing errors.

My point is that while a testing system should reduce infection rates, we can't say that the one in place in the premier league is robust and reliable enough, in conjunction with the UK-wide "lockdown", to say that it will/has, or even 'is likely to' based on one week.

Science is very careful about drawing conclusions, headlines about science less so.

I would also suggest I (and the many thousands of people working from home) am safer than most footballers. I will go out once a day for a bike ride - exercising in isolation, footballers will be training with others, and are soon to be training with contact. I will once a week at most, head to the shops, sticking to social distancing regulations, wearing a face covering when necessary (as footballers are likely to be, hopefully). I am working from home, so am not interacting in person with any co-workers. Outside work, my risk level is comparable to footballers; within work, my environment is much safer as I'm not in any sort of physical proximity to others who may be infected from elsewhere.

 

[Mellotron]

I would also suggest I (and the many thousands of people working from home) am safer than most footballers. I will go out once a day for a bike ride - exercising in isolation, footballers will be training with others, and are soon to be training with contact. I will once a week at most, head to the shops, sticking to social distancing regulations, wearing a face covering when necessary (as footballers are likely to be, hopefully). I am working from home, so am not interacting in person with any co-workers. Outside work, my risk level is comparable to footballers; within work, my environment is much safer as I'm not in any sort of physical proximity to others who may be infected from elsewhere.

Sorry, I feel you're still completely missing the point of why the TTT system is (very likely) effective.

Ramsdale bringing the virus in isn't unusual or a shock at all - probably got it in a shop or other enclosed space. The absolutely vital point is it has been spotted, where it wouldn't be spotted if it was you - he is asymptomatic - if it was you, you would be totally unaware and would therefore be at a higher risk of continuing to spread it if you visited a shop in this timeframe - he knows he is infectious, and so is much less likely to. Hence lower risk within that control group, than in the wider population.

You being around potentially infected people in an enclosed space (untested and completely unaware people all wandering around in a shop breathing and coughing and touching things and putting them back) is a much higher risk than footballers being outdoors - where virus transmission is much lower, amongst others who are being heavily and regularly tested.

I'm not suggesting footballers won't get the virus. I'm suggesting they will spread it far less than those who aren't regularly tested and yet taking similar levels of risk - thus the control group they are within is overall at a higher level of safety than the general public. That's completely logical.

I'm guessing that the unanimous vote to proceed with full contact training today would suggest this has now been conveyed to the players, if you were playing for a mid-table club with nothing to play for it would suggested you were at higher risk if you went back to full contact, there is no way on earth you'd agree to it, is there?

 

[Acker79]

Sorry, I feel you're still completely missing the point of why the TTT system is (very likely) effective.

Nope. I'm not arguing testing isn't (in theory) effective. I'm arguing that there are many potential areas where there are vulnerabilities and the theory can come undone in the actual system in place. We don't know, can't know, how big an impact those vulnerabilities have in the move from theory to practice in the premier league on one round of testing.

Ramsdale bringing the virus in isn't unusual or a shock at all - probably got it in a shop or other enclosed space.

Absolutely.

The absolutely vital point is it has been spotted, where it wouldn't be spotted if it was you - he is asymptomatic - if it was you, you would be totally unaware and would therefore be at a higher risk of continuing to spread it if you visited a shop in this timeframe - he knows he is infectious, and so is much less likely to. Hence lower risk within that control group, than in the wider population.

But under the system in place in the premier league, he continued to train, interact with his teammates and club employees all week before it was spotted. Potentially spreading it among the squad (and them with their families). And spreading it outside of training. It isn't just important to spot it, it's to spot it quickly. Spotting is great, but if you've already spent the better part of the work week potentially spreading it around, it's not a massive difference to barely interacting with anyone.

Being outdoors doesn't offer immunity, it lowers the chances in general, if you observe social distancing, but lets see how effectively it lowers chances in a training setting (where breaths are heavier and social distances need to be increased, where moving at speed creates a trail behind you larger than a standard social distance) by looking at the results of further rounds of testing.

I would have spent a few minutes at most interacting with other people, with my mouth covered, wearing gloves.

I'm not suggesting footballers won't get the virus. I'm suggesting they will spread it far less than those who aren't regularly tested and yet taking similar levels of risk - thus the control group they are within is overall at a higher level of safety than the general public. That's completely logical.

Yeah, and I'm not totally arguing against that. I'm arguing a) we don't know if it is 'far less' yet because we don't know how robust the systems in place are and what the size of reduction is and b) that people who aren't taking similar risks, people working from home, limiting contact with others are in a safer position and in the current system there are quite a few doing that. Staying home, working from home, are potentially (again, depending on the robustness of the system) safer due to the lack of social interaction.

Staying away from other people v interacting with people, logically, scientifically is safer. Like abstinence v regular testing for STIs.

I'm guessing that the unanimous vote to proceed with full contact training today would suggest this has now been conveyed to the players, if you were playing for a mid-table club with nothing to play for it would suggested you were at higher risk if you went back to full contact, there is no way on earth you'd agree to it, is there?

I'd want, as I said at the start, to see a few more rounds of testing.

If I'm forced to make a decision on the two rounds of tests so far: How many positive tests have there been at my club? In my town? What's my family situation? How much higher is the risk? Am I BAME? Am I asthmatic? Am I diabetic? How much am I being paid? How good am I - can I be confident that if I refuse to play I either won't face long term career repercussions at this club and/or won't have trouble getting a new club if I'm not supported in my decision to refuse to take part? What's the culture at m club - will my teammates understand, or will I become a pariah? How bored am I at home?

If it's me as I am just transposed into training - hell no I wouldn't go back. I'm not concerned about covid, but at my age, in my shape, the training regime of a professional footballer would probably kill me!

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The scientist at today’s briefing has just said that for the first three to five days of infection the result of any Covid 19 test will be negative (even if the person tested actually has the virus). This is why testing is insufficient and the reason quarantine for travelers from abroad is being introduced (at last). A question for the pro Project Restarters on here: how will players and staff be protected from the virus during that three to five day period ?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Be treated like an injury, mass testing before - how it works in Germany

 

[Acker79]

[tweet]1265694124050714626[/tweet]

Testing increased to over 1000 people.

(Not trying to make any point, I still think it's too soon, especially since they are also increasing the number of people being tested, just providing the latest update.)

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Be treated like an injury, mass testing before - how it works in Germany

Injuries aren’t contagious. My point is that the carrier of the virus can very quickly spread it around a squad and by extension, families of the squad. This can happen whilst the player is falsely testing negative as he has only just contracted the virus. This is relevant because football cannot take precautions such as social distancing like other workplaces.

 

[swindonseagull]

Injuries aren’t contagious. My point is that the carrier of the virus can very quickly spread it around a squad and by extension, families of the squad. This can happen whilst the player is falsely testing negative as he has only just contracted the virus. This is relevant because football cannot take precautions such as social distancing like other workplaces.

new track and trace from tomorrow says anybody who tests positive must isolate for 7 days anybody in close contact/spent close to longer than 15 mins will have to isolate for 14 days.......but I guess footballers are exempt.....

 

[Live by the sea]

Will the PL allow players to continually test as positive whilst restarting the season . Surely not .