Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, HiddenGem7 said:

It will take months to do human trials and you cant fast track the process in case there are unforeseen side effects. Especially if the plan is to roll it out to millions of people in a short space of time.

Months is still better than years, at least there seems to be a bit of good news amongst the almost unrelenting gloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silvio, you said this...

Because we failed to take early preventative steps, COVID is here and likely in far wider numbers than reported (CSO). Working on the basis of current estimate of one person infecting three others, this now cannot be controlled fully - by the time symptoms emerge, you’ve already infected others reducing the benefits of isolation.

with respect, very naive to think any measures would have stopped this virus entering our shores. I think people should listen and act upon the scientists and medical officers on the best practice.

The problem with mass cancellations now, against best previous govt advise, is that you enter quarantining far too early. I think everyone should accept the experts here and not pander to overseas moves all of which have not stemmed anything. We may also see a false dawn with China. 

 

 

Edited by havanatopia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

Silvio, you said this...

Because we failed to take early preventative steps, COVID is here and likely in far wider numbers than reported (CSO). Working on the basis of current estimate of one person infecting three others, this now cannot be controlled fully - by the time symptoms emerge, you’ve already infected others reducing the benefits of isolation.

with respect, very naive to think any measures would have stopped this virus entering our shores. I think people should listen and act upon the scientists and medical officers on the best practice.

The problem with mass cancellations now, against best previous govt advise, is that you enter quarantining far too early. I think everyone should accept the experts here and not pander to overseas moves all of which have not stemmed anything. We may also see a false dawn with China. 

 

 

Don’t get me wrong - I agree that it would have arrived here irrespective. My point is that until very recently we did little to curtail/monitor people coming into the country from affected areas, and our monitoring has been sub par overall (BBC local news for example reporting a school trip that went to Italy a week ago and had to return on Monday - why was there not guidance to stop that flight to start with)

I also agree we should listen to the experts. It troubles me that our expert advice is different to most other countries experts but we’ll see how it pans out. If they’re right, fantastic - if they’re wrong, it doesn’t bear thinking about

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, italian dave said:

There's two other key stages:

Regulatory approval: manufacturers will prioritise the largest markets first, so the EU will be high the list. We've just left the EMA (the EU regulatory body). So accepting their regulation would mean accepting new EU regulation. You'd have thought common sense might prevail in this instance, but the Brexit zealots now in charge have only just confirmed our exit from the EU pandemic early warning system in the name of a 'clean break'. So, the chances are we'll be some way down the list in terms of regulatory approval.

Manufacture: the UK has no vaccine manufacturing capacity. So we will be dependent on other countries, and on the various trading blocs etc tp which they belong. Again, we'll be some way down the list of priorities.

Never mind, we still won 2 world wars so we can go it alone in the world...

What a crook of shit.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-more-vaccines-than-any-other-g7-country

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/03/2020 at 00:11, steviestevieneville said:

Very worst case which won’t happen. World wide there’s been 125,000  people diagnosed , as of yesterday . So how we will get 500,000 dead in this country alone is ridiculous. 
 

Apologies for going back to a post but the reason only 125,000 people diagnosed yesterday is the lack of testing.  In America only 15,000 had been tested which is less than the Uk!  The virus is now in Africa as well.  Unfortunately the figures I quoted will prove to be conservative I think

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Don’t get me wrong - I agree that it would have arrived here irrespective. My point is that until very recently we did little to curtail/monitor people coming into the country from affected areas, and our monitoring has been sub par overall (BBC local news for example reporting a school trip that went to Italy a week ago and had to return on Monday - why was there not guidance to stop that flight to start with)

I also agree we should listen to the experts. It troubles me that our expert advice is different to most other countries experts but we’ll see how it pans out. If they’re right, fantastic - if they’re wrong, it doesn’t bear thinking about

Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Apologies for going back to a post but the reason only 125,000 people diagnosed yesterday is the lack of testing.  In America only 15,000 had been tested which is less than the Uk!  The virus is now in Africa as well.  Unfortunately the figures I quoted will prove to be conservative I think

Not sure where you get your figures from but this site gives a running total as the figures come in (apologies if this site has already been highlighted);

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On SSN this morning a Notts Co fan was none too happy about the season being abandoned. It would be unfair on clubs like his who are hoping to finish in a P/O position and regain their League status.

Villa and Tranmere are both in relegation spots, but both have played one game less than their rivals, so if the current positions were taken as the final positions, "it would be so unfair".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Nah, this far into the season you have to have an outcome. 

Absolutely.  

If the rumours about August/September are true, the logical thing would be to play this season out up to say end of OCtober / November.

Then have a longer international break where the Euro qualifiers are played,.  Before starting the new season in late November.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 22A said:

On SSN this morning a Notts Co fan was none too happy about the season being abandoned. It would be unfair on clubs like his who are hoping to finish in a P/O position and regain their League status.

Villa and Tranmere are both in relegation spots, but both have played one game less than their rivals, so if the current positions were taken as the final positions, "it would be so unfair".

Just easier to cancel this season and call it null and void,the likes of Villa will be happy and Leeds fuming(1 out of 2 ain’t bad like meatloaf sang) but life isn’t always fair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read something online though about regulations that state that if 75% of games played then that can be treated as sufficent to take standings where teams are now. Dunno if that's an FA rule, Premier League, Football League...

75% of 46 is 34.5 games. 75% of 38 is 28.5...All sides in the PL have played 29 games except for the 2 in hand- Aston Villa v Sheffield United and Man City v Arsenal- all clubs in the Championship have exceeded the 75% threshold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I did read something online though about regulations that state that if 75% of games played then that can be treated as sufficent to take standings where teams are now. Dunno if that's an FA rule, Premier League, Football League...

75% of 46 is 34.5 games. 75% of 38 is 28.5...All sides in the PL have played 29 games except for the 2 in hand- Aston Villa v Sheffield United and Man City v Arsenal- all clubs in the Championship have exceeded the 75% threshold.

If that is in the regulations, then I would think that should be the way to go if the season is to be abandoned. All clubs sign up to the rules and regulations so should have no come backs if they are applied.

Not sure how it would apply to playoff places though - 3rd place promoted maybe ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

If that is in the regulations, then I would think that should be the way to go if the season is to be abandoned. All clubs sign up to the rules and regulations so should have no come backs if they are applied.

Not sure how it would apply to playoff places though - 3rd place promoted maybe ?

 

The regulations themselves don't seem clear- Mike Thornton is a good one to follow on this, on Twitter.

3rd place promoted would be the most sensible option- but then if it's just 5 games,. you could stage them but only them later, behind closed doors...no easy answers tbh- not sure if anyone truly knows yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

If that is in the regulations, then I would think that should be the way to go if the season is to be abandoned. All clubs sign up to the rules and regulations so should have no come backs if they are applied.

Not sure how it would apply to playoff places though - 3rd place promoted maybe ?

 

Not sure how they would treat games in hand either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I did read something online though about regulations that state that if 75% of games played then that can be treated as sufficent to take standings where teams are now. Dunno if that's an FA rule, Premier League, Football League...

75% of 46 is 34.5 games. 75% of 38 is 28.5...All sides in the PL have played 29 games except for the 2 in hand- Aston Villa v Sheffield United and Man City v Arsenal- all clubs in the Championship have exceeded the 75% threshold.

Or a rule by a guy in Preston ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that this outbreak is going to go on for most of the rest of this year, if not into next year. This current phase is trying to slow down the spread of the virus, so that the health services can cope with the numbers of the sickest cases. Limiting the size of gatherings of people might make a bit of difference but it’s not the only issue. Sitting in your seat at AG is less likely to be a cause of spread compared to cramming into a pub or bar before or after the game, so how long the situation continues with sporting events is unclear. Of course if members of the teams or coaching staff are infectious then that even stops teams playing behind closed doors. That could put a lot of smaller clubs in Leagues 1 and 2 into financial difficulty.

Given all of that, I would suggest the positions of the clubs at present should be taken as their finishing positions with just those in the automatic positions going up taking the place of the equivalent number of clubs at the bottom of the league above. However you can never count against the greed of both Sky and football club owners, so common sense may not prevail.

If the sensible option was followed, it’s unlikely that any more football would be played before next season, and even the start of that may be delayed. It’s not the end of the world and neither will the virus be the end of it either. People just need to stay calm and sensible, wash their hands frequently and properly, self isolate if they display the symptoms of a viral illness, and stop panic buying everything from toilet rolls to eggs. Only a small percentage of people will die, most will be old (over 70)  and this will be very sad for the families affected, but this is not Ebola or SARS which kill 30% of all those infected.

This outbreak will have long lasting effects  on the world, just as others have done in the past. Some may take years to play out, and are unpredictable at this stage, unlike football, which by this time next year should be looking forward to another set of champions, promotions and relegations and probably Euro 2021.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eardun said:

This (below) was the bit from the Times that the Sky article above mentioned. Yes banning events is also mentioned but I don’t think it necessarily means all events over 500 people will be banned for two years. However, given the experts were saying the peak of the virus here is expected to be end May to mid June, if the season is to be completed, I can only see that taking place Aug-Oct when the previous season would usually have started. Have a break/transfer window after that. You then finish next season later - or shorten like others have said by only playing each team once or splitting the Divisions into North and South regions with play offs afterwards. 

”Police will be able to detain infected people and schools could be forced to stay open under a package of powers being announced next week to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. 
Emergency laws to help to limit the spread of the virus will be introduced after the number of people infected in Britain rose by 200 in 24 hours to 798. The measures, seen by
The Times, will also let councils lower standards in care homes to deal with staff shortages. The legislation, which ministers intend to push through parliament in two weeks, will equip the government to deal with the disease. Ministers believe that the virus will infect the majority of the population, and the laws will stay in place for two years.“

Police have barely got enough resources to deal with current day to day issues.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I did read something online though about regulations that state that if 75% of games played then that can be treated as sufficent to take standings where teams are now. Dunno if that's an FA rule, Premier League, Football League...

75% of 46 is 34.5 games. 75% of 38 is 28.5...All sides in the PL have played 29 games except for the 2 in hand- Aston Villa v Sheffield United and Man City v Arsenal- all clubs in the Championship have exceeded the 75% threshold.

For the maths you tally up all the games which is 380 in the EPL and 552 in the Championship.  75% of 380 is 285 which means the EPL is 3 over the target.  For the Championshipthe figure is way over 75% as you say.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...