Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

They've voted for no relegation to the National League - but this is subject to EFL approval which I hope they don't get. No relegation - then no promotion I say.

Does that mean there will be no promotion from the National league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m pretty much resigned to City missing out if games don’t restart, because none of the PPG methods work for us, however....

....Peter Loehman, a Danish, Sheffield Wed fan, who I follow on Twitter has come up with another method.  His method is less about finishing the remaining 100+ games and buying some time to complete a new form of playoffs.

Ultimately, he proposes more of an elimination type playoff, where we get a one off chance away to Forest.

if we win that we’d go into a 2 legged play off.  It basically gives clubs down to 8th (in Peter’s model we fall below Millwall based on the strength of our remaining fixtures) a chance.  Ditto for the clubs in relegation battle.

It basically requires 14 matches to be played, instead of the 113.

Don't worry yourself over it as the season will be completed now 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mozo said:

Whichever basement team wins League 2 this season, knows in their hearts it doesn't really count. 

Especially as they weren’t even top of the league!

Also didn’t quote it but thanks for the reply, you made good points about responsibility of testing that I hadn’t considered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Football centre show Matt Upson becomes the latest person to say if you can't play out the season you can't really relegate clubs on ppg, but would still allow promotions. Call me cynical but sky either appear to be getting people to say clubs shouldn't be relegated or they're finding people with that viewpoint to be on their shows.

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

1 hour ago, phantom said:

I don't dislike Swindon. They made themselves look a bunch of arses a few seasons back and karma sorted that night out. 

Hopefully another team to help send the gash down 

Fair point you make and as previously stated many of us didn't over celebrate that win and were just happy to beat a local rival who a lot of us are envious of how your club is run and conducts itself and we're do our best to get the better of your rivals who's fortunes certainly look like their changing and a million miles apart from you guys?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, New Dazzler said:

Good pick as Bristol is twinned with Hannover. I was going to go for Dynamo Dresden, as it is the only German city I have visited.  The good news is that they were due to play each other tomorrow, the bad news is that the game has been postponed as 2 of the Dresden team have tested positive for Covid 19!

And they think it's safe and proper to be restarting already..?! 

Seems ridiculous to me, when they could wait for at least a few more weeks. 

However much we all want football back, why rush it, if it's not safe yet.. ?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

And they think it's safe and proper to be restarting already..?! 

Seems ridiculous to me, when they could wait for at least a few more weeks. 

However much we all want football back, why rush it, if it's not safe yet.. ?! 

There may well never be a vaccine so define "safe". Anyway, that is for another thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

There may well never be a vaccine so define "safe". Anyway, that is for another thread.

I wouldn't class a point at which games are postponed because players are testing positive, as being a safe time to re-start, personally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

We don't take any special measures in a bad year for flu which kills 60,000 so I don't see how this is any different.

We do take special measures for flu every year though including free vaccinations for all vulnerable people. And flu hasn't killed 60,000 people in the UK in a year for a long time. In fact it's not killed more than 30,000 people in a season since the late 1960s.

Regardless, surely the long lockdown we're still in lets you see that this is slightly different from "a bad year for flu"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

We do take special measures for flu every year though including free vaccinations for all vulnerable people. And flu hasn't killed 60,000 people in the UK in a year for a long time. In fact it's not killed more than 30,000 people in a season since the late 1960s.

Regardless, surely the long lockdown we're still in lets you see that this is slightly different from "a bad year for flu"?

60,000 1976 and 50,000 five times since then, latest 2017/18.

Apart from the first four weeks to allow the NHS to gear up in case it was really bad, and it is now blatantly obvious that it isn't and has been so for several weeks to anyone who actually looks at the numbers, the governmental response has been clearly wrong.

You don't infer the seriousness of a problem from the response to the problem when you are able look at the problem itself.

20181130-uk-winter-deaths-indy.png?w660

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Interesting interview with Dale Vince on Talksport he said the announcement that came out about league two is incorrect. Teams were not given the same information on their teleconference that were in the press release. 

He said the vote was also not unanimous to end the season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
2 hours ago, phantom said:

Interesting interview with Dale Vince on Talksport he said the announcement that came out about league two is incorrect. Teams were not given the same information on their teleconference that were in the press release. 

He said the vote was also not unanimous to end the season 

He was also on R5 Friday evening saying the same thing and he questioned/disputed some of the figures quoted by other clubs (costs of playing v losses by not playing).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bobby Bollax said:

And healthcare workers 

The death rate amongst NHS workers aged 18 - 65 is no different to the whole population aged 18 - 65.

The higher death rate is in the retired NHS workers who returned to work to help and they should never have been asked to do this because they were always going to be far more vulnerable.

I think that's a scandal along with the NHS infecting care homes by sending out recovered patients to them before confirming that they were clear of the virus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

The death rate amongst NHS workers aged 18 - 65 is no different to the whole population aged 18 - 65.

The higher death rate is in the retired NHS workers who returned to work to help and they should never have been asked to do this because they were always going to be far more vulnerable.

I think that's a scandal along with the NHS infecting care homes by sending out recovered patients to them before confirming that they were clear of the virus.

Not arguing your point as I haven’t looked at age related figures, but on a separate issue in the case of people carrying Covid:

  • 0.27% of people on average are carrying the virus at any one point (see yellow bubble below), broken down into
  • 0.22% of people in households
  • 1.37% of people in care jobs

Basically you’re 6 times as likely to be carrying the virus if you’re in a care role.  That may sound obvious, e.g. you’re more at risk, but then add in you’re supposed to have PPE, processes to extra clean, vigilant etc, it doesn’t look great.

D347197E-7D50-4B61-A558-BE387ED5A724.thumb.jpeg.842d6841349ce14c4f022174c7ad5a86.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

The death rate amongst NHS workers aged 18 - 65 is no different to the whole population aged 18 - 65.

The higher death rate is in the retired NHS workers who returned to work to help and they should never have been asked to do this because they were always going to be far more vulnerable.

I think that's a scandal along with the NHS infecting care homes by sending out recovered patients to them before confirming that they were clear of the virus.

Was talking about the flu vaccine. Not Covid-19

vulnerable people and health care workers get them. 

Edited by Bobby Bollax
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

He was also on R5 Friday evening saying the same thing and he questioned/disputed some of the figures quoted by other clubs (costs of playing v losses by not playing).

Surely stuff like losses through not playing is dictated by your season ticket price/how many season ticket holders you have/how many had pre-purchased tickets already and how much you'd have to repay and is therefore different for everyone? Hard to dispute

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...