Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

Does anyone hear believe the theories that this has been around longer than suggested? It now seems it can be traced back to November rather than end of December as first thought and the Chinese aren't exactly known for being forthcoming. THey could have sat on this for ages

Lots of people seem to be saying they were ill over Xmas time, more so than usual for the time of year. Myself had a genuine flu that wiped me out for 4/5 days, cleared for a few days then came back again briefly. Shortly later my grandmother who I visited after I thought it had cleared was taken ill with some kind of chest infection. My partner also became ill around the same time (week or so after me) but with more of a dry cough, really snotty/sinusy infection which lasted a couple of weeks at least and her Dad then developed the similar chest infection issue that my nan had. We also had an elderly neighbour come down ill enough to call an ambulance which turned out to be a nasty flu. Potentially already been doing the rounds or did we all coincidentally catch something more "seasonal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

As always it will be those at the bottom who are more adversely affected, certainly financially. Except it would seem Deliveroo on the evidence of yesterday at a certain fast food chain. More deliveries for them than those actually ordering and eating there!

As for players having to take a pay cut or break in payments, that may be essential for many EFL clubs. However even in the Premier League, the profit margins are tight and once income dries up a bit, a few of those will struggle. Could we even see FFP rules loosened or abandoned for a year to save clubs from extinction?

Yep, always the way. I'm suggesting footballers though should consider acting in the greater good- a break, wages or % of wages deferred maybe- I don't know but those who can most afford it should give this consideration IMO.

FFP, and other implications- decent article here, covers a few things.

https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/articles/corona-virus-transfer-window-ffp-implications-premier-league

If it pans out in society as I fear it might though, we could have absolute chaos. Layoffs, temporary layoffs...transition from wages to SSP etc- mortgages, rent- big spikes in homelessness? Maybe it's hyperbole but unless there are measures about rent, mortgages etc we could have big problems.

Who knows what kind of economy we may have left by the end of this if we go into lockdown etc?

On the FFP front, I'd have thought a suspension- except for clubs already under investigation/with punishments pending etc but who knows!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Does anyone hear believe the theories that this has been around longer than suggested? It now seems it can be traced back to November rather than end of December as first thought and the Chinese aren't exactly known for being forthcoming. THey could have sat on this for ages

Lots of people seem to be saying they were ill over Xmas time, more so than usual for the time of year. Myself had a genuine flu that wiped me out for 4/5 days, cleared for a few days then came back again briefly. Shortly later my grandmother who I visited after I thought it had cleared was taken ill with some kind of chest infection. My partner also became ill around the same time (week or so after me) but with more of a dry cough, really snotty/sinusy infection which lasted a couple of weeks at least and her Dad then developed the similar chest infection issue that my nan had. We also had an elderly neighbour come down ill enough to call an ambulance which turned out to be a nasty flu. Potentially already been doing the rounds or did we all coincidentally catch something more "seasonal"

Have a friend (works on public transport) who was hospitalized early Nov with breathing difficulties plus flu like symptons. And a Surgery nurse who suspects its been here pre Xmas.

Could be a virus other than Covid 19 of course, while it wouldnt surprise me if it was C-19.

If it has been around in part longer im hoping that would lessen its impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sweeneys Penalties said:

If true that's fantastic!

There is some doubt about whether this is true however.

ETJ7fMiWAAE_4uc?format=jpg&name=large

In addition.

Lastly.

https://whatthesport.co.uk/football/sorry-but-cristiano-ronaldo-has-not-converted-his-hotel-chain-into-hospitals-for-covid-19-patients?

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Does anyone hear believe the theories that this has been around longer than suggested? It now seems it can be traced back to November rather than end of December as first thought and the Chinese aren't exactly known for being forthcoming. THey could have sat on this for ages

Lots of people seem to be saying they were ill over Xmas time, more so than usual for the time of year. Myself had a genuine flu that wiped me out for 4/5 days, cleared for a few days then came back again briefly. Shortly later my grandmother who I visited after I thought it had cleared was taken ill with some kind of chest infection. My partner also became ill around the same time (week or so after me) but with more of a dry cough, really snotty/sinusy infection which lasted a couple of weeks at least and her Dad then developed the similar chest infection issue that my nan had. We also had an elderly neighbour come down ill enough to call an ambulance which turned out to be a nasty flu. Potentially already been doing the rounds or did we all coincidentally catch something more "seasonal"

Not for a moment, at least not whilst there's no scientific evidence for the theory.  There's a spike in flu like illnesses over winter every year, so anecdotal evidence of people being ill in winter doesn't mean much at all.  If there had been a new easily transmissible virus with a > 1% mortality rate doing the rounds since November I think it would be very visible in national statistics and have been noticed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Colombo Robin said:

Different "experts" are advocating different approaches. They cant all be right

How does one become an expert on something unprecedented and once-in-a-generation anyway? 

Especially something as unique like a - admittedly bad for some - seasonal flu which has been given a name. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I’ve often wondered what you look like Downend 

Lucky I wasn't wearing a hat, as I usually do, or I would have been unrecognisable. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, handsofclay said:

What I don't get about all of this is we are constantly being told that the best way to protect ourselves (apart from self isolation) from catching this coronavirus is to wash our hands after we've touched things and especially before then touching our faces or eating. If we cannot wash our hands - due to the unavailability of sinks and running water in everyday situations - then hand gel is just as good. Now that is something we can all carry around and get into the habit of using. After all, it will be a lifesaver. 

Now this is the bit I don't get. In the last war, it seemed likely that the home front would be subjected to poison gas attacks. Gas masks were thus quickly issued to everyone in the country and everyone carried them around in the supplied cases. Gas masks cost a fair bit of dosh to produce for a nation that in the late-1930s was still in the midst of the Great Depression. Yet it was done. It was seen as a necessity to protect our population.

Now in 2020 we are a far richer country than our 1939 former selves. Yet, there has been no talk of providing everyone in the country with hand gel. Hand gel being significantly less expensive than a gas mask to produce. Instead we are just told about how hand gel can be a lifesaver and when one looks to purchase a bottle at the supermarket, there's none there because someone has bought 59 years worth of supply. I can imagine back in 1939 a Public Information Film telling us that gas masks were essential but it was your task to find one on the empty shelves of the local stores. Surely it isn't beyond the Government to impose emergency powers upon the alcohol sanitising gel manufacturers and get them to produce enough to provide everyone in the nation with a bottle or two a week.

 

Absolutely. My brother who works at a GPs surgery says that even they can't get any hand gel. It should all be requisitioned by the government, used in the NHS first, and the distributed to households, possibly using posties (with armed guard if it ever gets to that stage) 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering what Talksport  will find to talk about in the next few weeks or even months. Advertising revenue will fall off a cliff as numbers of listeners decline dramatically. 

Additionally Sky Sports subscriptions may well be cancelled by millions as there simply is no Sport worth watching on TV..

Examples of some of many  sporting business models that will find the upcoming months very challenging with perhaps serious long term consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

With respect, they are experts in their field. Not saying they can't be wrong, but I'd trust their ideas based on research and data over the general public

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of clarity.

For example, there is a strong belief that the government's policy is to push for "herd immunity" and everyone is treating that as fact but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever said that is the government strategy and the government have now explicitly said that it is not their strategy at all. It is far from clear whether this was ever their strategy or simply some journalists' interpretation of the society.

Similarly, earlier Matt Hancock said that over-70s - and possibly those with underlying health conditions - would need to self-isolate for up to four months but now it appears he may have meant minimise social contact, not self-isolate completely, and it is unclear whether or not those under 70 with underlying health conditions are included.

My worry is not necessarily the government approach - I am not wholly clear on the government approach and I am not an epidemiologist, or even someone who was quite certain what an epidemiologist was until about three weeks ago - but the fact the government is losing control of the narrative and not being clear enough on what they are trying to do so people can understand the plan and the reasons for it.

I think the only way to get things back on track is for them to treat us like adults and be transparent and explicit about what the steps are over the next few months and who is going to be asked to do what and in what order. The reality is people cannot trust the government's plan if they don't tell us what that plan is and I think a lot of the lack of clarity and frustration is not necessarily because the government is doing the wrong things but because we don't really know exactly what they are doing and what the reasoning is. As it stands, the uncertainty is making us fear there is an inadequate or flawed response and I can't see a way around that beyond clear information. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whilst I've been asserting my presumption that market forces will dictate that we will resume the season, thus placating the money men, there is one thought I just had...

What if West Ham, for example, refuse to recommence the season, on "health grounds" (arguably a rational stance, regardless of their contrived selfish motives)?

So the majority of the PL vote to resume under controlled circumstances, but one or more relegation threatened sides refuse, threatening legal action etc.

Would they want to do this anyway? Hmmm....

Edited by mozo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of clarity.

For example, there is a strong belief that the government's policy is to push for "herd immunity" and everyone is treating that as fact but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever said that is the government strategy and the government have now explicitly said that it is not their strategy at all. It is far from clear whether this was ever their strategy or simply some journalists' interpretation of the society.

Similarly, earlier Matt Hancock said that over-70s - and possibly those with underlying health conditions - would need to self-isolate for up to four months but now it appears he may have meant minimise social contact, not self-isolate completely, and it is unclear whether or not those under 70 with underlying health conditions are included.

My worry is not necessarily the government approach - I am not wholly clear on the government approach and I am not an epidemiologist, or even someone who was quite certain what an epidemiologist was until about three weeks ago - but the fact the government is losing control of the narrative and not being clear enough on what they are trying to do so people can understand the plan and the reasons for it.

I think the only way to get things back on track is for them to treat us like adults and be transparent and explicit about what the steps are over the next few months and who is going to be asked to do what and in what order. The reality is people cannot trust the government's plan if they don't tell us what that plan is and I think a lot of the lack of clarity and frustration is not necessarily because the government is doing the wrong things but because we don't really know exactly what they are doing and what the reasoning is. As it stands, the uncertainty is making us fear there is an inadequate or flawed response and I can't see a way around that beyond clear information. 

From the Guardian piece shared on this thread previously...

Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, has explained that part of the reason for not embracing bans is to encourage “herd immunity”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mozo said:

From the Guardian piece shared on this thread previously...

Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, has explained that part of the reason for not embracing bans is to encourage “herd immunity”.

Apologies - I stand corrected. But still Matt Hancock is saying the opposite:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/matt-hancock-on-herd-immunity-and-coronavirus-1-6562302

Clarity is needed urgently. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dave36 said:

There is a shortage of resources in the NHS - surely 38900 negatives show poor recognition of patients symptoms!

Not necessarily - the symptoms are very similar to cold or flu. Surely better to be on the safe side? Especially as a lot of those were before we knew it had taken hold in the UK. It would also include people in quarantine or who had come into contact with infected people and where infection needed to be ruled out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ska Junkie said:

Just rang the old man to tell him about self isolation for anyone over 70. His reply was' we're staying in, just staying in Spoons rather than home'.

Got to love the older generation. 

Well as Ireland have just announced the shut down of their pubs apparently in part due to the irresponsible behaviour of some, and worries about St Patrick’s day on 17th  March how long before he won’t be able to stay in Spoons?

Edited by E.G.Red
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Marlborough Red said:

Just wondering what Talksport  will find to talk about in the next few weeks or even months. Advertising revenue will fall off a cliff as numbers of listeners decline dramatically. 

Additionally Sky Sports subscriptions may well be cancelled by millions as there simply is no Sport worth watching on TV..

Examples of some of many  sporting business models that will find the upcoming months very challenging with perhaps serious long term consequences.

To be fair Talksport has been going downhill for a while to many shows where the presenters love themselves 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RedM said:

I was surprised at so few tests

If, as it appears, many of those infected are asymptomatic what's the point in testing? You'd otherwise end up constantly testing the whole of the population to see as and when they became infected or reinfected. No point in that. 

They're testing those in hospital or at high risk who may have related symptoms, likely been exposed or might become super spreaders and that's about it, because that's a sensible approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nbafc said:

Have a friend (works on public transport) who was hospitalized early Nov with breathing difficulties plus flu like symptons. And a Surgery nurse who suspects its been here pre Xmas.

Could be a virus other than Covid 19 of course, while it wouldnt surprise me if it was C-19.

If it has been around in part longer im hoping that would lessen its impact.

See I’ve heard lots of stories of this, it’s definitely seeing two completely separate family members in the same type of “at risk” category coincidentally getting the same nasty chest infection (put them both in hospital) that made me think.

2 hours ago, Nibor said:

Not for a moment, at least not whilst there's no scientific evidence for the theory.  There's a spike in flu like illnesses over winter every year, so anecdotal evidence of people being ill in winter doesn't mean much at all.  If there had been a new easily transmissible virus with a > 1% mortality rate doing the rounds since November I think it would be very visible in national statistics and have been noticed.

Happy to be shot down, like you say it’s winter and people get flu but I know people who had it despite having the flu jab so potentially a different strain to what they usually see? I’m also very rarely ill (like once every few years). Not conclusive at all I know.

I agree with you logically that you’d think it would have been detected if it was around that much earlier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of clarity.

For example, there is a strong belief that the government's policy is to push for "herd immunity" and everyone is treating that as fact but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever said that is the government strategy and the government have now explicitly said that it is not their strategy at all. It is far from clear whether this was ever their strategy or simply some journalists' interpretation of the society.

Similarly, earlier Matt Hancock said that over-70s - and possibly those with underlying health conditions - would need to self-isolate for up to four months but now it appears he may have meant minimise social contact, not self-isolate completely, and it is unclear whether or not those under 70 with underlying health conditions are included.

My worry is not necessarily the government approach - I am not wholly clear on the government approach and I am not an epidemiologist, or even someone who was quite certain what an epidemiologist was until about three weeks ago - but the fact the government is losing control of the narrative and not being clear enough on what they are trying to do so people can understand the plan and the reasons for it.

I think the only way to get things back on track is for them to treat us like adults and be transparent and explicit about what the steps are over the next few months and who is going to be asked to do what and in what order. The reality is people cannot trust the government's plan if they don't tell us what that plan is and I think a lot of the lack of clarity and frustration is not necessarily because the government is doing the wrong things but because we don't really know exactly what they are doing and what the reasoning is. As it stands, the uncertainty is making us fear there is an inadequate or flawed response and I can't see a way around that beyond clear information. 

As someone who it seems to have an underlying condition, type 2 diabetes (and only one kidney) I would welcome greater clarity. I would be happy to self isolate for several months, provided I could have delivery of those provisions I need, but remain unclear as to the need when I possess no symptoms of the virus. We are being told that all of the 35 who have sadly died thus far had underlying health conditions, but that in itself doesn't seem enough. I don't wish to pry into anyone's grief but it would assist me to know how many of the 35 had type 2 diabetes, or have some indication of the severity of the underlying conditions that caused the tragic loss of life. 

Edited by RoystonFoote'snephew
Text corrrection
  • Like 2
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...