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

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

It turns out in, erm, hindsight that not cancelling the Cheltenham Festival might have been a bad idea:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/cheltenham-festival-2020-racegoers-coronavirus-17947651?fbclid=IwAR1HPl-TDFr8NR-UrrRTsrdsUi_bym5mIMnKXw09Oxa2XNGbAa4JF43ENOw

Who knew?

What is the point of that story, a few people are feeling ill after attending a festival (that they never had to attend). So just 3 people out of 250000 but it must have been caught there, surely there would be a lot higher percentage of people who got it if they got it there?

It's not as if they have been anywhere else is it? 

[bcfc01]

36 minutes ago, wood_red said:

What is the point of that story, a few people are feeling ill after attending a festival (that they never had to attend). So just 3 people out of 250000 but it must have been caught there, surely there would be a lot higher percentage of people who got it if they got it there?

It's not as if they have been anywhere else is it? 

Its like this 

******* relentless.

Edited March 22, 2020 by bcfc01

[Super]

Watching Sunday Supplement on Sky talking about football not coming back until Oct at the earliest. 

[Red-Robbo]

20 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

It turns out in, erm, hindsight that not cancelling the Cheltenham Festival might have been a bad idea:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/cheltenham-festival-2020-racegoers-coronavirus-17947651?fbclid=IwAR1HPl-TDFr8NR-UrrRTsrdsUi_bym5mIMnKXw09Oxa2XNGbAa4JF43ENOw

Who knew?

My next-door neighbour knows of someone who came down with the virus 5 days after attending two days of the Cheltenham Festival. 

[Tre Bong]

20 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

To be fair, it was an eventuality that no scientist or doctor could have reasonably foreseen.

 

[Roger Red Hat]

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Saved me posting it! I'm going to refer to Scummings as Eichmann from now on.

[Super]

21 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

My next-door neighbour knows of someone who came down with the virus 5 days after attending two days of the Cheltenham Festival. 

Some still think that was right to go about. Ridiculous.

[LondonBristolian]

33 minutes ago, wood_red said:

What is the point of that story, a few people are feeling ill after attending a festival (that they never had to attend). So just 3 people out of 250000 but it must have been caught there, surely there would be a lot higher percentage of people who got it if they got it there?

It's not as if they have been anywhere else is it? 

Like everything, it ups the risk and it was an unnecessary risk given how quickly events have escalated.

Or course people who got it there might have got it elsewhere but it does not need that many people who did not previously have it to contract it there before it is being introduced to communities where it was not present before and thus further the spread.

Controlling this infection is all about managing risk as effectively as possible and this is a risk that could have been managed but was not.

[bcfc01]

5 minutes ago, Super said:

Some still think that was right to go about. Ridiculous.

Record attendances apparently;

https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/cheltenham/media/press-releases/2019/03/record-attendances-throughout-the-festival-presented-by-magners-in-2019/

 

[S25loyal]

1 hour ago, robin_unreliant said:

That was the kind of reaction I expected tbh. That isn't what I'm saying. Where is the shock and outrage for the 600,000 loved ones who die every year is the point. Why isn't there massive pressure to spend whatever it takes to save them when there isn't a pandemic. Why has everyone been happy to sit back and allow the govt to decide not to spend more on healthcare in the past when that is condemning people to die early? The reaction to this is at odds with how we normally decide spending on healthcate is all I'm saying. 

To but it’s bluntly, it’s easy for a lot to think the NHS has too much money as it is, this country is a very much me me me me and **** everyone else. 

There is no community anymore, you can tell this by the mass panic buying “as long as I’m ok **** the rest” . People don’t know their neighbours names etc, how likely are you going to help them etc. 

At least the only positive from This is people might start taking the NHS seriously instead of stripping it of everything like all public services.

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Like everything, it ups the risk and it was an unnecessary risk given how quickly events have escalated.

Or course people who got it there might have got it elsewhere but it does not need that many people who did not previously have it to contract it there before it is being introduced to communities where it was not present before and thus further the spread.

Controlling this infection is all about managing risk as effectively as possible and this is a risk that could have been managed but was not.

So 3 people on Twiiter say they have the symptoms of Coronavirus and they went to the Cheltenham festival, they haven't been tested for it, but you are saying as fact they definitely have it, definitely caught it at Cheltenham, and introduced it to communities where it wasn't present before....

Utter nonsense imo.

 

[havanatopia]

Who mentioned ventilators? Anyway, something I came across this morning and I am still searching for a decent quality video to post concerns first hand experience of ventilator use by one Corona virus victim. So this guy explained that when he lay down in his hospital bed he felt all the symptoms, such as giddy head, aching body, dry cough etc melting away. He felt in a great place. But then the doctors noticed his breathing became laboured so they put him on a ventilator. This was fine for a little while but then they noticed that he was beginning to fall asleep and felt he could be slipping into a coma and cardiac rest. So they woke him up. And his pulse returned to normal. This happened more than once so they started to get him to sit up. This brought his heart rate back to even more stable but he had terrible pain when they did this and he vomited each time. His analogy; the ventilator gives you initial relief but it will kill you as your normal bodily functions shut down. He remains in hospital but is getting better. Now, must find that video because he explains it a whole lot better. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by havanatopia

[LondonBristolian]

2 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So 3 people on Twiiter say they have the symptoms of Coronavirus and they went to the Cheltenham festival, they haven't been tested for it, but you are saying as fact they definitely have it, definitely caught it at Cheltenham, and introduced it to communities where it wasn't present before....

Utter nonsense imo.

 

No offence but you seem to have a bit of a habit of either deliberately or accidentally misinterpreting what other posters are saying in order to dismiss their arguments.

I am not saying that. I am saying exactly what I said in my post. It was an unnecessary risk to take within the circumstances and clearly had the potential to both increase the number of infections and widen the geographic spread. That is not “utter nonsense” but basic epedemiology, hence why pubs, restaurant and clubs are now closed and events are not happening. Given how much policy has escalated since - and that was the week it was starting to ramp up -!it was a huge and avoidable risk to hold a major event just one week ago given other comparable countries were already on lockdown.

I would massively appreciate it if you could try to respond to what I actually say - not your own speculations of what I might be trying to say in addition.

[havanatopia]

22 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Record attendances apparently;

https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/cheltenham/media/press-releases/2019/03/record-attendances-throughout-the-festival-presented-by-magners-in-2019/

 

Bit like many coastal towns yesterday.

[Northern Red]

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

He is a nasty, nasty person, in a very dangerous position, pulling the strings of a bumbling fool.  He doesn’t give a flying f&€k either.

At the moment Boris is being saved by the eloquent Sunak...who imho has done nothing more than I’d expect - seeing as we are in unprecedented times.

This most definitely isn’t a time for political point scoring, I’m not convinced by Corbyn either....but you can only judge the government of today, and I think Boris might have realised just what the job of PM is all about, and he will be Cummings’ fall-guy. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Like everything, it ups the risk and it was an unnecessary risk given how quickly events have escalated.

Or course people who got it there might have got it elsewhere but it does not need that many people who did not previously have it to contract it there before it is being introduced to communities where it was not present before and thus further the spread.

Controlling this infection is all about managing risk as effectively as possible and this is a risk that could have been managed but was not.

 

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

No offence but you seem to have a bit of a habit of either deliberately or accidentally misinterpreting what other posters are saying in order to dismiss their arguments.

I am not saying that. I am saying exactly what I said in my post. It was an unnecessary risk to take within the circumstances and clearly had the potential to both increase the number of infections and widen the geographic spread. That is not “utter nonsense” but basic epedemiology, hence why pubs, restaurant and clubs are now closed and events are not happening. Given how much policy has escalated since - and that was the week it was starting to ramp up -!it was a huge and avoidable risk to hold a major event just one week ago given other comparable countries were already on lockdown.

I would massively appreciate it if you could try to respond to what I actually say - not your own speculations of what I might be trying to say in addition.

Right I will have another go then. It seems to me you are reading my reply wrong.

Unnecessary risk - I agree

You have said - "Or course people who got it there might have got it elsewhere" - Who has got it there? You are stating as fact people have got it at Cheltenham Festival (and are using that story you posted as evidence). The 3 people mentioned in that story haven't been tested at all, and have obviously been to loads of places (because they obviously didn't give a toss about attending a higher risk event did they, so where else have the been)?

You then said "but it does not need that many people who did not previously have it to contract it there before it is being introduced to communities where it was not present before. Again you are saying they have contracted it there and introduced it communities where it wasn't present.

I really do not see where I am speculating at all. I was responding to your original post.

[East Londoner]

1 hour ago, robin_unreliant said:

The BBC online had a story recently around a prediction that 60% may be infected and 0.5% fatalties. That could be 200,00 of which the majority will be older people with other conditions. These are people they stated who could quite possibly have died in the next year or two anyway. 600,000 die in the uk annually in a typical year. 

All those stats make me wonder if trashing the economy is really the logical response. When NICE look at recommending a new treatment on the NHS they look at the cost compared to the benefit i. e. how many years of qualty life is delivered by spending £X. 

Why is that logic, which has contributed to controlling healthcare spending for many years, suddenly being abandoned? If this new logic, in terms of what we are prepared to spend to save lives,  carries on once this is over we will probably need to quadruple the nhs budget! 

To me it feels as if all the normal logic around what we should spend on healthcare has been turned on its head in a mass panic. It felt like our govt was reacting quite logically initially, accepting that it is inevitable that the majority of people will eventually get it, whatever. However as other countries lockdown they couldn't politically resist the pressure to follow suit. 

If 200,000 end up dying anyway and on top of that a million jobs are lost and the national debt rockets then will we look back and think the govt did a good job in this crisis?

On the other hand if, by some miracle, there are only 20,000 more deaths than usual will we be prepared to carry on spending at this same rate on the nhs budget to deliver the same kind of reduction in the normal death rate. I'm sure if we doubled the spend we could buy an extra year or two, on average, for those 600k dying every year. 

I doubt it - which suggests to me we have ditched the logic we use in normal times and are just reacting to mass panic. 

On the whole i agree with you but the problem is people get quite attached to their mother or father or grandparents and would rather they got to spend longer with them. I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where we should write off a significant number or people 

I remember thinking last week about how this virus probably did this guy with MND a favour as that’s truly an horrendous condition to have but then saw his widows reaction and neither he nor she was ready to say goodbye and who can blame them 

Maybe in the future we will have to decide between leadership that looks at things emotionally or someone who’s more calculated as they’re pluses and minuses to both. But not yet. 

As a side note as someone who’s classed as a key worker so has to go into work it’s interesting watching how people who are having to stay at home are gradually getting more irritable with each other and that’s definitely reflected in this forum 

[One Team In Keynsham]

Meanwhile in NYC:

17 Employees, 21 Inmates Test Positive For Coronavirus In NYC Jails
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/38-positive-coronavirus-nyc-jails-rikers_n_5e76d6a6c5b6eab77949a435

Getting into an environment like a prison, or any place where self-isolation is nigh on impossible, is going to hurt.

[mozo]

5 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Meanwhile in NYC:

17 Employees, 21 Inmates Test Positive For Coronavirus In NYC Jails
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/38-positive-coronavirus-nyc-jails-rikers_n_5e76d6a6c5b6eab77949a435

Getting into an environment like a prison, or any place where self-isolation is nigh on impossible, is going to hurt.

You could always fight the screws so that they put you in isolation...

[Abraham Romanovich]

37 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Record attendances apparently;

https://www.thejockeyclub.co.uk/cheltenham/media/press-releases/2019/03/record-attendances-throughout-the-festival-presented-by-magners-in-2019/

 

Just to be factually correct the record attendance refers to last year.

Still the height of irresponsibility to hold it after cancelling all football and rugby.

People react to perceived risk and by letting it go ahead somehow down plays the impact of the need for self distancing.

[One Team In Keynsham]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

You could always fight the screws so that they put you in isolation...

Just make sure you don't lamp the one with the sweats and coughing.

[Alex_BCFC]

11 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

Just to be factually correct the record attendance refers to last year.

Still the height of irresponsibility to hold it after cancelling all football and rugby.

People react to perceived risk and by letting it go ahead somehow down plays the impact of the need for self distancing.

If I remember rightly, football etc was cancelled on the Friday so it was hardly going to be stopped on the final day.

[Chairman Mao]

1 hour ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

To be fair, it was an eventuality that no scientist or doctor could have reasonably foreseen.

What a ******* moronic decision that was. The organisers should hang their heads in shame irrespective of whether people get the virus or not. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Chairman Mao

[robin_unreliant]

17 minutes ago, walnutroof said:

On the whole i agree with you but the problem is people get quite attached to their mother or father or grandparents and would rather they got to spend longer with them. I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where we should write off a significant number or people 

Absolutely but mums, dads and grandparents are always dying. Judgements about whether to spend money keeping them alive are taken every day. It's what the NHS has to do as the govt limits its resource so decisions have to be made.

We restrict some treatments so money is targeted to best effect but don't think that people aren't left to die routinely because it costs too much to extend their life. Working out how to deliver the best population health outcome from a set budget happens all the time. I just suspect what's happening now is totally out of step with the way this country has done it for many decades. If this is now the right way to do it let's remember that when it's over and we can't afford to finance the nhs again as the public finances have collapsed. 

[And Its Smith]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Some still think that was right to go about. Ridiculous.

In hindsight it’s a massive error 

Edited March 22, 2020 by And Its Smith

[LondonBristolian]

56 minutes ago, wood_red said:

 

Right I will have another go then. It seems to me you are reading my reply wrong.

Unnecessary risk - I agree

You have said - "Or course people who got it there might have got it elsewhere" - Who has got it there? You are stating as fact people have got it at Cheltenham Festival (and are using that story you posted as evidence). The 3 people mentioned in that story haven't been tested at all, and have obviously been to loads of places (because they obviously didn't give a toss about attending a higher risk event did they, so where else have the been)?

You then said "but it does not need that many people who did not previously have it to contract it there before it is being introduced to communities where it was not present before. Again you are saying they have contracted it there and introduced it communities where it wasn't present.

I really do not see where I am speculating at all. I was responding to your original post.

In terms of your first point, I would usually agree it was a reasonable point that we do not know if they actually have got it. However this is an unusual case as we know the illness is in high circulation and we know the Chief Science Advisor believes 55, 000 people were infected as of the middle of last week but we also know there are not sufficient testing kits and people with mild to moderate symptoms are not being tested. The government advice is that anyone with symptoms of a cough or fever should work from the assumption they do have COVID-19. An assumption is not to go on but, given it is impossible to actually test that assumption at this current time, it is not unreasonable to work from the premise that someone who thinks they have it probably does. We don’t know if people did get it there but, given the number of active cases and the possibility of transmission, we have to treat it as a real possibility. And it is not reasonable to expect proof of this when proof is impossible to acquire. And cases where proof is impossible to acquire, absence of proof should not indicate the infections did not happen. 

In terms of the second point, I think it is clear I am not explicitly saying that people definitely did acquire it there and spread it to communities but rather that there is a significant risk this might have happened.

[And Its Smith]

Just seen people playing tennis.  Unbelievable 

[LondonBristolian]

35 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Absolutely but mums, dads and grandparents are always dying. Judgements about whether to spend money keeping them alive are taken every day. It's what the NHS has to do as the govt limits its resource so decisions have to be made.

We restrict some treatments so money is targeted to best effect but don't think that people aren't left to die routinely because it costs too much to extend their life. Working out how to deliver the best population health outcome from a set budget happens all the time. I just suspect what's happening now is totally out of step with the way this country has done it for many decades. If this is now the right way to do it let's remember that when it's over and we can't afford to finance the nhs again as the public finances have collapsed. 

Perhaps so but again we are talking about the potential for significant numbers of deaths of people who would not have died without it this illness including the possibility of tens and thousands of people who are under 70 without health conditions. And we are talking about the potential for hundreds of thousands of hospitalisations, with the stats suggesting up to 40% of these will be under 70 without health conditions.

As the government realised earlier after the Imperial college report I linked to in my reply to you earlier, the  scale of threat makes any other choices impossible.

[BS2 Red]

3 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

This attitude utterly baffles me. What the Hell do people think politics is if it isn't running the country and making the appropriate decisions in a national crisis.

Of course it is going to be about politics. I agree other parties could have made similar errors but Boris Johnson has chosen to be leader of the Conservative party and wanted to be Prime Minister and being prime minister means being ultimately accountable for the timing and choice of decisions taken.

 

It’s all very similar to when there’s a mass shooting in America and the likes of Fox News immediately jump to “now’s not the time to talk about gun control!”.

If the government is making mistakes, then now is exactly the time to point it out and hold them to account.

I’ve seen a lot of people on various sites posting that Boris is doing a good job. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that he’s also made a lot of mistakes. The biggest of which was appointing and listening to a monster like Cummings.