Jump to content
IGNORED

medical emergencies in the crowd


MattWSM

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I'm just saying that vastly more vaccines have been given which means more people having side-effects.

I do not pretend to understand the science so am not about to do selective cut and pasting from various sites of varying reliability!

That’s okay. Just wondered if there was something out there that pointed to a proportionately higher number of cardiac arrests following a Covid vaccine ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Someone at a match is essentially dying but it’s more important for you that a game of football doesn’t stop?   For me, what is weirder, is that a game of football should continue whilst a person just yards from the action gets life saving aid 

Hopefully 

Thank god someone has said it. I can't believe that it seems 'strange' to some people for a game to stop whilst someone is potentially dying?!

It's absolutely right that the game stop. A large area around the affected spectator needs to be cleared for obvious reasons, so lots of people standing in walkways etc, games should always be stopped for this to ensure that they get the right treatment as quickly as possible, as medical staff might need to run onto the pitch to get to them quickly.

 

Edit - Further to add, imagine if a goal goes in, people are jumping around, it's extremely loud whilst paramedics are on the floor trying to communicate to the fan or to their colleague, just makes perfect sense for the game to stop, and never understood why it hasn't stopped before to be honest.

Edited by Akira
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television - it's hardly David Icke saying 1 + 1 = 500.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know he risks.

36 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television - it's hardly David Icke saying 1 + 1 = 500.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, steveybadger said:

Respectfully, given the source of this ‘news’ it has a whiff of climate change deniers to me I.e. agenda pushing.

Regardless, and even if this is true, if there was a cost benefit analysis of vaccinating compared to the risk of heart attacks I suspect 99.999…….% of scientists would still recommend vaccination. See also blood clotting.

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

Edited by bbew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steveybadger said:

Were the games recently (Watford particularly) stopped because there were no medical staff to treat players as they were in the crowd? No idea and probably not, but just a thought.

Yes i saw the medical running across the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confident games are now being stopped whereas they didn't used to be (in the main). Until last season, I don't remember ever watching a game of football where the game was stopped for a medical emergency in the crowd (I'm in my thirties), so a fair amount of time.

COVID aside, you must get close to a million people watching football in-person each week, from a wide range of age ranges, and lets face it, probably not always from the most 'heart healthy' demographic. So you can't tell me there were never medical emergencies before the last two years, and now there are. 

I'm sure it's a change of approach. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Akira said:

Thank god someone has said it. I can't believe that it seems 'strange' to some people for a game to stop whilst someone is potentially dying?!

It's absolutely right that the game stop. A large area around the affected spectator needs to be cleared for obvious reasons, so lots of people standing in walkways etc, games should always be stopped for this to ensure that they get the right treatment as quickly as possible, as medical staff might need to run onto the pitch to get to them quickly.

 

Edit - Further to add, imagine if a goal goes in, people are jumping around, it's extremely loud whilst paramedics are on the floor trying to communicate to the fan or to their colleague, just makes perfect sense for the game to stop, and never understood why it hasn't stopped before to be honest.

Just in case you have mis read my point.

The point was, its not strange the game is being stopped for a medical incident, which of course is right but why we are hearing more of these incidents and games being stopped

Like we have all eluded to it could be a number of reasons:

1. Poor fan health

2. Vaccine related

3. Covid related.

4. New directive

5. Medical staff not available for players

6. Also maybe more focus on people well being.

7. No more incidents just published/reported more because the games are being halted now.

It was just a question to understand the change in frequency of the games being halted and the reasons that have led to that but definitely the right decision to stop football and help people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we even seeing it more often now, or is it just conformation bias mixed in with the fact as soon as anything happens you get a bunch of anti-vax idiots gleefully using someone else's misfortune to confirm their ignorance, which makes it much bigger news than it used to be?

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did wonder about this, mentioned in passing and I have a few thoughts.

People are more aware, more likely to ask for help. There have been loads of cases where people haven't realised they have had a heart attack, just felt unwell and kept it to themselves. 

Everyone knows there are medical staff there for such events, makes sense to ask for help early.

People are more knowledgable about strokes/heart attacks etc what with defibrillators being common sights around.

Every game is either televised live or full coverage through various outlets. You keep up to date on everything and an emergency would be flagged quickly.

One other thing. I do remember times when a coded message would be sent out. Mr Ashton to the office was at one point supposed to be a potential problem (Not Mark BTW). I remember seeing huddles in the stand, you may find out later there was a medical problem. Most likely you wouldn't and if you didn't from a game you were at, there is no way you'd hear it from another game. In the olden days they would probably take the person to the medical room or somewhere away from the stand. Times have changed.
It's like every single problem in society today, not necessarily worse, but we are much more aware.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbew said:

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

Of course, up to the individual but personally I find it difficult to get past almost the entire scientific community saying get vaccinated.

And not looking for an argument (honest) but I was just unsurprised that the self proclaimed antidote to ‘‘the mainstream media’’ ie GB News, had somebody on raising concerns about vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bbew said:

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

At best it's premature. We're talking about a study that hasn't been fully released yet, with an abstract that has already led to concerns around how the data is being analysed. 557 people isn't a massive sample and they've not done any kind of adjustment for lifestyle factors.

An expert cardiologist will know this and frankly I think it's unwise and premature of him to be publicly talking about concerns raised in a study that he was not involved in, where he does not have access to the data, before further research has happened.

I absolutely agree that people need precise and accurate information on the risks so they can make an informed decision. But anyone involved in medicine will know that studies can - with the best will in the world - be flawed or produce a set of results that is not replicated in the wider population. The people who did this research have a responsibility to be transparent and get the data out and - at that point - other medics and scientists can test the research for themselves and ensure they have a clear picture. But I don't think that means it's appropriate or responsible for a cardiologist to be speculating about those concerns on TV before that picture is clear and what that suggests to me is a medic far more interested in raising his media profile than following the foundations of good scientific analysis. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that games are being suspended because of two factors.

To gain full access to the patient it is necessary to move those in the immediate area away. Where do these people go? Standing in the view of others?

A delay in a football match is a small price to pay if the immediate attendance of the medical staff results in saving a life.

I have always considered that the two best places to have a stroke or heart attack are the door to the BRI or a football league match.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
6 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

I suspect that games are being suspended because of two factors.

To gain full access to the patient it is necessary to move those in the immediate area away. Where do these people go? Standing in the view of others?

A delay in a football match is a small price to pay if the immediate attendance of the medical staff results in saving a life.

I have always considered that the two best places to have a stroke or heart attack are the door to the BRI or a football league match.

of course the other thing, those that are probably best to treat the person are those with the necessary kit pitch side so if anything was to happen if the game continued that opens up a major safety issue

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bbew said:

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

 

An expert cardiologist he may be. Qualified to talk about virology he isn't. (Incidentally he also is famous for pushing all kinds of fad diets and claiming vegetarianism is "dangerous")

The research abstract Malhotra highlights has been comprehensively trashed in the medical community and it appears to be the work of a fad-diet peddling quack.

This blog post highlights the many, many problems with this "research" - not least of which it is utterly unreferenced and data-free:

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/12/gb-news-fake-news.html

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Unless you know of the precise details of every case then it really could be anything.

Could just be that these incidents are getting reported more. Each one that happens increases interest in the next, interest snowballs as people start to think something's going on.

Could be because more games are televised, and reportedly on, you notice it more.

Could be that where they used to be dealt with in the carpark, they're now done pitchside.

Could be that there's more cokeheads at football now and they are having issues.

Could be a result of the increasing average age of a football fan coupled with decreased fitness (obesity, lower activity levels etc) in society. 

Could just be a weirdly dense frequency of these things following a freakishly quite period.

Could be none of the above. 

It's probably nothing. 

It certainly wouldn't be down to excitement at Ashton Gate. More likely stress.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

At best it's premature. We're talking about a study that hasn't been fully released yet, with an abstract that has already led to concerns around how the data is being analysed. 557 people isn't a massive sample and they've not done any kind of adjustment for lifestyle factors.

An expert cardiologist will know this and frankly I think it's unwise and premature of him to be publicly talking about concerns raised in a study that he was not involved in, where he does not have access to the data, before further research has happened.

I absolutely agree that people need precise and accurate information on the risks so they can make an informed decision. But anyone involved in medicine will know that studies can - with the best will in the world - be flawed or produce a set of results that is not replicated in the wider population. The people who did this research have a responsibility to be transparent and get the data out and - at that point - other medics and scientists can test the research for themselves and ensure they have a clear picture. But I don't think that means it's appropriate or responsible for a cardiologist to be speculating about those concerns on TV before that picture is clear and what that suggests to me is a medic far more interested in raising his media profile than following the foundations of good scientific analysis. 

I tried to avoid mentioning the vaccine in my post as some people with agendas tend to misread things deliberately . Not saying anyone on here would .

I had seen a post or two mentioning a risk of Myocarditis , it said something like twice the chance compared to unvaccinated people. It also said that risk was 20 times higher with COVID .
BHF say ...
There have been cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Cases of myocarditis following the vaccine have been rare, have usually been mild, and those affected have usually quickly felt better with rest and simple treatments. In most cases of myocarditis, heart function returns to normal with no sign of scarring, although it's too early to know about long-term outcomes of myocarditis linked to the vaccine.

There are around 100,000 people admitted to hospital each year with heart attacks (one every 5 minutes) , in the past that would probably be what happened with someone in the ground. Now they treat them on the spot massive difference. COVID or not, vaccine or not , I'm not surprised we see more incidents now.

 

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/covid-19-vaccines-and-myocarditis-should-you-be-worried

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It surely must be easier for the medical staff to reach the person in need when the match isn't on. Imagine trying to reach someone when the crowd is cheering after a goal or something. I think this has become more frequent because players have been asking for the game to halt. If i remember correctly players have pointed to the crowds for the refs to pause the match. 

I think it also depends on the stadium, sometimes the fans are far away and the players don't notice. I wonder if the same happened in wembley, would they pause? Surely the players/ref wouldn't see what's going on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

An expert cardiologist he may be. Qualified to talk about virology he isn't. (Incidentally he also is famous for pushing all kinds of fad diets and claiming vegetarianism is "dangerous")

The research abstract Malhotra highlights has been comprehensively trashed in the medical community and it appears to be the work of a fad-diet peddling quack.

This blog post highlights the many, many problems with this "research" - not least of which it is utterly unreferenced and data-free:

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/12/gb-news-fake-news.html

Yep- GB News, that’s certainly somewhere I’d be going if I wanted unbiased, factual information ?

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another factor to consider is the ageing dynamic of football crowds.  I'd say the average age of the block I sit in is about 55, and only the presence of a few dads with children drags the average under retirement age.

Same at loads of clubs:  https://www.football365.com/news/wanted-the-next-generation-of-football-fans

More oldies at football = more medical emergencies

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

3 hours ago, bbew said:

I am not sure I understand when you say the 'source of this news' - an expert cardiology on terrestrial television.

I agree the benefits of vaccination will far outweigh the risks, but that doesn't mean people are not allowed to question/know the risks.  The cost/benefit analysis is also different for each individual.

PLEASE stop using this football forum to defend false information about vaccinations.

You posted about a story on GB News.  You might not have realised this was based on a dodgy study.  But PLEASE just accept that this story is just scaremongering and stop trying to defend your original post.

I'll declare my interest as, even though I have a full-time job in the public sector, I give up some of my time most weekends to volunteer at local vaccination centres.  I do this because very very strongly believe in the benefits of the vaccination programme for the people getting vaccinated and for their families, friends and also for other people they encounter on a completely random basis.  I have nothing but contempt for people who undermine this programme by helping to spread false information.

In these days "on terrestrial television" means absolutely nothing.  Russia Today and Al Jazeera TV are other terrestrial TV channels.  Some might argue they are more trustworthy than GB News.

PLEASE just accept that the story you highlighted was not reliable

Edited by red panda
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

An expert cardiologist he may be. Qualified to talk about virology he isn't. (Incidentally he also is famous for pushing all kinds of fad diets and claiming vegetarianism is "dangerous")

The research abstract Malhotra highlights has been comprehensively trashed in the medical community and it appears to be the work of a fad-diet peddling quack.

This blog post highlights the many, many problems with this "research" - not least of which it is utterly unreferenced and data-free:

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2021/12/gb-news-fake-news.html

What?

Do you mean you have no faith in the world-renowned cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health in Salvador, Brazil and Cardiology MSc examiner at the University of Hertfordshire, U.K? He has even 'authored' a book, The 21-Day Immunity Planshowing how to reduce vulnerability to disease, including COVID-19. 

Have you never taken Quercetin food supplements as recommended by Dr. Steven Gundry, the former cardiac surgeon who has spent the last ten years retired from medicine and instead has spent his time writing diet books. The renowned (ex) cardiac surgeon who has made numerous pseudoscientific and false claims since he left the medical profession, and earns a living selling unproven wellness treatments? 

Oh, Red_Robbo, ye of little faith.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, red panda said:

PLEASE stop using this football forum to defend false information about vaccinations.

You posted about a story on GB News.  You might not have realised this was based on a dodgy study.  But PLEASE just accept that this story is just scaremongering and stop trying to defend your original post.

I'll declare my interest as, even though I have a full-time job in the public sector, I give up some of my time most weekends to volunteer at local vaccination centres.  I do this because very very strongly believe in the benefits of the vaccination programme for the people getting vaccinated and for their families, friends and also for other people they encounter on a completely random basis.  I have nothing but contempt for people who undermine this programme by helping to spread false information.

In these days "on terrestrial television" means absolutely nothing.  Russia Today and Al Jazeera TV are other terrestrial TV channels.  Some might argue they are more trustworthy than GB News.

PLEASE just accept that the story you highlighted was not reliable

I agree with many of your comments, and thank you for your hard work as the vaccination drive in this country has been fantastic and saved thousands of lives, and could not have been done without people like you.

All my original post was saying was that there is an increase in people suffering cardiac problems and this needs to be looked into what is causing this.  I even stated in my original message how the title of the link was not entirely accurate and I said there could be so many reasons.

I feel like many people are completely unaware of the rise in health problems,  people seemed to be saying that it is just we are more aware of them now, which may be the true of incidents in stadiums, but does not explain the rises in the population as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this anti vaccine on the internet.

In the early years of the 19the century, the average lifespan in Britain was around 35 to 45 years. Industrial diseases and things like smallpox and polio meant an early death for many.

Come from then until mid 20th century with vaccines for those diseases and others like measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever has meant that in the developed countries, we are now living longer until eighties to nineties. Mostly due to vaccines. What if our parents and grandparents had decided against vaccines? Many of us would never have been born let alone living ten and twenty years longer!

The risks of vaccines are small compared to the dangerous diseases that take too many lives. The lunatic fringe who are filling the net with scares are not doing any of us a favour. A life for all animals, vegetation etc. is not a rehearsal for another go at it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MrBibs said:

I recall we sadly lost someone, I think to a heart attack, in the Dolman during the Gary Johnson era iirc.  Medics tried unsuccessfully to save him but the game wasn’t stopped.

I've been watching city since 77/78 and I remember a body being carried out on a stretcher at least once, possibly twice, before 1980. There was also the unfortunate incident with the drummer during the pre match v Forest in the Littlewoods cup semi final 88/89.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Are we even seeing it more often now, or is it just conformation bias mixed in with the fact as soon as anything happens you get a bunch of anti-vax idiots gleefully using someone else's misfortune to confirm their ignorance, which makes it much bigger news than it used to be?

 

There's also a fair bit of confirmation bias from people saying things like 'I'm sure it's a new directive' without having anything to support that opinion. I do think this warrants some further investigation as the incidents are really beginning to stack up.

45 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

All this anti vaccine on the internet.

In the early years of the 19the century, the average lifespan in Britain was around 35 to 45 years. Industrial diseases and things like smallpox and polio meant an early death for many.

Come from then until mid 20th century with vaccines for those diseases and others like measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever has meant that in the developed countries, we are now living longer until eighties to nineties. Mostly due to vaccines. What if our parents and grandparents had decided against vaccines? Many of us would never have been born let alone living ten and twenty years longer!

The risks of vaccines are small compared to the dangerous diseases that take too many lives. The lunatic fringe who are filling the net with scares are not doing any of us a favour. A life for all animals, vegetation etc. is not a rehearsal for another go at it.

I don't think conflating all vaccines together is a good way to look at this. There have been numerous times throughout history when vaccines have failed too.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

All this anti vaccine on the internet.

In the early years of the 19the century, the average lifespan in Britain was around 35 to 45 years. Industrial diseases and things like smallpox and polio meant an early death for many.

Come from then until mid 20th century with vaccines for those diseases and others like measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever has meant that in the developed countries, we are now living longer until eighties to nineties. Mostly due to vaccines. What if our parents and grandparents had decided against vaccines? Many of us would never have been born let alone living ten and twenty years longer!

The risks of vaccines are small compared to the dangerous diseases that take too many lives. The lunatic fringe who are filling the net with scares are not doing any of us a favour. A life for all animals, vegetation etc. is not a rehearsal for another go at it.

Vaccines have been great. 
But your post seems to place increased mortality rates solely on them, and conveniently omits huge improvements in hygiene, general healthcare, improved working conditions and much more.  
 

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...