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

[Napper]

The Conservative & Union Party, a libertarian/right wing/market driven government led by Boris Jonson initiated the closure of the UK economy
Seasonal flu rarely sees critical care professionals crying into cameras asking for help
The Spanish Flu and many pandemics do their worst in the second wave

Media ****ing fear is the least of all our worries (and I'm usually a half glass full bloke)

oh get a grip mate

 

[crodonilson]

In a bad flu season we don't mitigate the situation massively by closing down all non-essential businesses and imposing strict social distancing rules on the nation. Without these measures, the transmission rate would've been at least 3 and you could probably increase the deaths by 10 or more.

Of course not, my point was in isolation in response to the original post I quoted where the death toll being read out before the football results seeming to suggest it was wrong for football to be played while people were dying. I was merely demonstrating that an awful lot of people die from a lot of very nasty diseases in normal times and society continues to go about its business.

 

[swindonseagull]

View attachment 123178

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11983776/premier-league-doctors-express-concerns-over-project-restart-ahead-of-monday-meeting

The Premier League ( top six) won’t listen to Dr’s unless they work for SKY

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Of course not, my point was in isolation in response to the original post I quoted where the death toll being read out before the football results seeming to suggest it was wrong for football to be played while people were dying. I was merely demonstrating that an awful lot of people die from a lot of very nasty diseases in normal times and society continues to go about its business.

But the point made by [MENTION=643]nwgull[/MENTION] still stands. If society (including football) were to go about its business as normal then the infection and death rates would be significantly higher. Your comparisons with seasonal flu are simply not comparing like with like.

 

[swindonseagull]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-government-requires-two-week-quarantine.html

Germans pushed back another 2 weeks ..

 

[wellquickwoody]

Horse racing is re-starting on Monday!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/horse-racing/52542255

Has never stopped here, fxxking ridiculous.

 

[Silverhatch]

oh get a grip mate

I have got a grip.

Think lock down should be eased
Think population density is a huge factor in transmission (big cities with mass transport systems fear worse than cities like Brighton)
Think one size absolutely does not fit all when dealing with CV19

But also stand by my previous observations and have been consistent in my views: Global governments were/are spooked enough to remove liberty from entire populations and close economies down (some quicker than others including Trump and BJ); health systems have been overwhelmed or needed such drastic tweaking that they've actually caused secondary issues that have added to the primary issues, and have read quite a bit of stuff about second waves in pandemics (Spanish Flu being particularly sobering).

Have little time for clickbait media scaremongering.

 

[wellquickwoody]

In a bad flu season 25,000 people in this country lose their lives, over approx 4 months thats 1,500 people a week, society barely blinks an eyelid.

From comparing ONS figures, it seems the weekly death toll in the UK in April has nearly doubled in 2020. From around 10k per week to 18/19/20k. Bit different to 1.5k, oh and the normal figures no doubt include the flu stats.

 

[LamieRobertson]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-government-requires-two-week-quarantine.html

Germans pushed back another 2 weeks ..

The article suggests ‘reports’ that it will....officially nothing has been said...but a two week quarantine period which seems sensible ..

 

[Bozza]

The article suggests ‘reports’ that it will....officially nothing has been said...but a two week quarantine powering seems sensible ..

This illustrates the whack-a-mole issue at play.

You hit one mole (infected player) and another will soon pop-up, and that will continue to happen unless absolutely everyone involved is "safe" to begin with, ie has been in quarantine, and remains like that until such time as all fixtures have been completed. How many players, not to mention other club staff involved in training and match days, will agree to such conditions?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

This illustrates the whack-a-mole issue at play.

You hit one mole (infected player) and another will soon pop-up, and that will continue to happen unless absolutely everyone involved is "safe" to begin with, ie has been in quarantine, and remains like that until such time as all fixtures have been completed. How many players, not to mention other club staff involved in training and match days, will agree to such conditions?

Yep, you're looking at at least a couple of months in isolation from their families.

 

[Bozza]

Yep, you're looking at at least a couple of months in isolation from their families.

The alternative is that it is accepted that teams will lose players who are infected, as has been the case with workplaces that have remained open, and will be the case as others open in coming weeks and months.

Of course, losing Lewis Dunk is not quite the same as Bob from accounts being away for a couple of weeks.

The clubs would also need to find some sort of agreement on how many player losses from a squad is considered "OK", and managed in the same way as injuries.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The alternative is that it is accepted that teams will lose players who are infected, as has been the case with workplaces that have remained open, and will be the case as others open in coming weeks and months.

Of course, losing Lewis Dunk is not quite the same as Bob from accounts being away for a couple of weeks.

The clubs would also need to find some sort of agreement on how many player losses from a squad is considered "OK", and managed in the same way as injuries.

With another country ‘getting there’ first it will be interesting to see what conditions they lay down for a return to football....assuming that is the case..they’ve already delayed making a decision one week

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

The alternative is that it is accepted that teams will lose players who are infected, as has been the case with workplaces that have remained open, and will be the case as others open in coming weeks and months.

Of course, losing Lewis Dunk is not quite the same as Bob from accounts being away for a couple of weeks.

The clubs would also need to find some sort of agreement on how many player losses from a squad is considered "OK", and managed in the same way as injuries.

I think this is the most realistic option. If a player tests positive there is only the need to isolate that one player for 7 days and keep testing the others regularly- they can all continue unless they test positive.

Another factor which would reduce the risk of infection is looking again at how many people they think need to be in the stadium and in potential contact with the players. E.g. I think they said the Prem said previously they needed like 100 media staff in the stadium when really they would just need cameramen / technical support in the stadium and everything else could be done remotely. So maybe 10 people instead of 100. Any reduction would help as every person in the stadium potentially brings in an infection. Also, everyone they have deemed as 'essential' to be in the stadium should also be tested daily and put into 7 days isolation if they test positive- not just the palyers.

Then, assuming all those people and their families are socially distancing, the risk could be getting really low. If some people are in a family who cannot socially distance- e.g. a kitman who lives with a partner who is a key worker- I guess ideally those people would be able to be replaced with someone less at risk of infection. Etc.

With a bit of thought they could probably reduce the risk of infection significantly without having to put the entire playing staff and support in isolation for 2 months.

I assume Barber has this all in hand..

 

[sparkie]

The alternative is that it is accepted that teams will lose players who are infected, as has been the case with workplaces that have remained open, and will be the case as others open in coming weeks and months.

Of course, losing Lewis Dunk is not quite the same as Bob from accounts being away for a couple of weeks.

The clubs would also need to find some sort of agreement on how many player losses from a squad is considered "OK", and managed in the same way as injuries.

I see why the club have kept it top secret as to which 2 (+?) players have already had Covid-19.

 

[crodonilson]

From comparing ONS figures, it seems the weekly death toll in the UK in April has nearly doubled in 2020. From around 10k per week to 18/19/20k. Bit different to 1.5k, oh and the normal figures no doubt include the flu stats.

Yes and that's why football and other things have been suspended and rightly so. When football does return those numbers will be significantly lower.

My original point was merely replying to a comment about the number of deaths implying it's immoral to play football while there are so many people dying.

 

[Springal]

Yep, you're looking at at least a couple of months in isolation from their families.

Better make sure you isolate anyone transporting the players. The cleaners/caterers also in the hotel they're holed up also need to isolate in there.

The whole thing is impossible - you cannot put a 'bubble' around these players.

 

[Jim in the West]

The alternative is that it is accepted that teams will lose players who are infected, as has been the case with workplaces that have remained open, and will be the case as others open in coming weeks and months.

Of course, losing Lewis Dunk is not quite the same as Bob from accounts being away for a couple of weeks.

The clubs would also need to find some sort of agreement on how many player losses from a squad is considered "OK", and managed in the same way as injuries.

As an accountant, can I just highlight how important Bob might be!

But the slight difference with footie is that if Lewis Dunk gets infected, then it is pretty likely that he will have infected a number of players in both the Albion squad and any team we happened to play against whilst LD was asymptomatic. This is just the natural corollary of the nature of a contact sport.

Bob in accounts would presumably have been working from home, or in an office environment where he was social distancing. He won't have infected all his work mates.

There was something in the news yesterday about how much less time it takes to transfer the virus if you are really close to someone (I can't find it now - but being in close proximity to someone, compared to 2m away, was massively more dangerous - hence football has inbuilt dangers which don't exist in pretty much any other sector at the moment (except probably healthcare, where everyone should be wearing copious PPE).

Obviously the EPL's objective is to have everyone tested and presumed "clean" before a match takes place. But the tests at the moment are still a long way from being 100% accurate (from what I've read, the antigen or PCR tests are pretty close to 100% accuracy when indicating a positive result, but still deliver up to 15% false negatives). I'm sure this is at the absolute top of the EPL's list of issues to address, and the clubs' concerns.

 

[drew]

I think this is the most realistic option. If a player tests positive there is only the need to isolate that one player for 7 days and keep testing the others regularly- they can all continue unless they test positive.

Another factor which would reduce the risk of infection is looking again at how many people they think need to be in the stadium and in potential contact with the players. E.g. I think they said the Prem said previously they needed like 100 media staff in the stadium when really they would just need cameramen / technical support in the stadium and everything else could be done remotely. So maybe 10 people instead of 100. Any reduction would help as every person in the stadium potentially brings in an infection. Also, everyone they have deemed as 'essential' to be in the stadium should also be tested daily and put into 7 days isolation if they test positive- not just the palyers.

Then, assuming all those people and their families are socially distancing, the risk could be getting really low. If some people are in a family who cannot socially distance- e.g. a kitman who lives with a partner who is a key worker- I guess ideally those people would be able to be replaced with someone less at risk of infection. Etc.

With a bit of thought they could probably reduce the risk of infection significantly without having to put the entire playing staff and support in isolation for 2 months.

I assume Barber has this all in hand..

But you can't just isolate one player. Anyone he has come into contact with also needs to be isolated. Current guidelines are that when you have symptoms, you have to isolate for 7 days but anyone who lives with you has to isolate for 14 days! Effectively, the whole team/staff need to go into isolation as do any team you have played in the last 7 days!

On that basis I don't think it will work but if they do proceed, I do agree that you can bin most of the media other than the technicians although I would suggest you need more than 10 to put a game live on tv.

Seems to me there are thousands of people being asked to live in a bubble for over a month just so Liverpool can say they've won the EPL!!!

 

[wellquickwoody]

Yes and that's why football and other things have been suspended and rightly so. When football does return those numbers will be significantly lower.

My original point was merely replying to a comment about the number of deaths implying it's immoral to play football while there are so many people dying.

In my view it is immoral to pay people to play football (contact sport) when everyone else is in some kind of lockdown. You know, people who have been furloughed, or worse, who are struggling for money and cannot even have a hug with their loved ones.

Meanwhile top level sport thinks it is somehow better than everyone else and should be able to carry on receiving obscene amounts of money for doing something pretty much irrelevant to the existence of life. And that is just the organisers. The participants, whilst somewhat reluctant to expose themselves to risk, think that they should still receive ridiculous wages for not actually doing their job, whilst many of their greatest fans may be getting absolutely fxxk all.

Professional sport is a blight upon the planet right now.