LondonBristolian

30 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

There are many options but finishing season whenever risk is classed as small/minimal (it won’t be zero for ages) is the least bad option.

I’m yet to hear an argument for scrapping the season that cannot be easily dismissed. Bearing in mind any decision now is the precedent for the future 

I think my only issue is that nobody should be forced to return to their workplace until their employers are able to reassure them it is a safe environment. Especially as players may have family members who may be vulnerable and it is reasonable for BAME footballers in particular to be concerned due to the evidence of increased risk.

I don't think the risk is necessarily unmanageable but I don't think any player should be penalised or criticised for not feeling it is safe to go back and choosing not to do so. I think it is especially important because players have a power and clout that most employees don't and, as you say, decisions now are the precedent for the future. The precedent has to be that the onus is on employers and organisers to prove that they are managing risks and providing a safe working environment. IF not, no players should be criticised for exercising a legal right not to put themselves at risk. 

13 minutes ago, lenred said:

Six players tested positive already in the Prem. Not a great start but not massively surprising. Will certainly give ammunition to those not wishing to proceed so soon though.  

My feeling is that it is inevitable there will be more cases over the coming weeks as the lockdown eases and likely there will be a further spike in the Autumn. I don't think it is by any means inevitable that will lead to a further widespread wave of infections but it is vital that the government get an effective tracing and tracking system in place.

Hypothetically that will enable people to isolate potential spikes and prevent their return. 

Contrary to what some have said on here, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they reasonably believe their employers are not providing a safe environment to work in. If a company wanted to sack someone in those circumstances, then, if taken to court, they'd need to be able to prove that employee's fear for their safety was not reasonable.

Obviously the reality is most employees in most jobs would be scared to do that, and not be able to afford the court action or the risks of losing but the fact employees are strongly disincentivised from using those rights does not change the fact those rights are there. The difference with footballers is that they can afford to take the risk and have sufficient count that employers won't sack them or risk losing them but there is no moral dilemma or hypocrisy in any player refusing to return if they genuinely believe it is unsafe for them or their families if they do so. Health has to take precedence and any footballer refusing to return due to legitimate safety concerns is perfectly within their legal and moral rights.

3 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Apologies for going off topic slightly, but I thought capacity for testing hadn’t dropped but the number of people being tested had. In other words, we could test around 100k people each day but we can’t force 100k people to come forward and ask to be tested every day.

See my post a couple above your one. The capacity is there to test people but the logistics to get people to those tests is not. The issue is not people not coming forward and asking but people being unable to get to the tests that are available. 

1 hour ago, Robin101 said:

I thought that testing capacity was over 100k but there currently wasn't the demand for it?
 

From what I can tell, the issue isn't demand but the ability to access the tests. A lot of the tests are drive through so impossible to access if you cannot drive and people who cannot drive also have logistical challenges getting to testing locations and may be fearful of risking public transport - especially given they are likely to being tested because they believe they could be infectious.

Furthermore initially - not sure what it is like now - it was incredibly difficult to book tests so people have been unable to get the slots that are available. The issue is logistics rather than a lack of demand. 

15 minutes ago, Robin101 said:

This is no different to the rest of society though, no? Why would a player have any grounds to sue a football club if they became ill/family member became ill (as awful as that would be) anymore than a retail warehouse worker could sue their employer? It does get exceptionally complicated though I agree - what should happen to a vulnerable worker if they refuse to start working again? 

These are all important questions. Ultimately companies outside of football are being asked to re-open and being given guidance that is pretty flexible and open to interpretation. The answer is that, if any employer fails to take "reasonable" steps, they may well be open to being sued by employees if things go wrong. The massive question is what is interpreted as "reasonable". Similar with vulnerable workers. Under UK Health and Safety legislation, anyone is entitled to refuse to work if they "reasonably" believe it is not safe for them to do so. Ultimately, if it got that far, a court would have to decide if their concerns were reasonable. If a ruling was made, that would set a precedent for other similar cases but, until it is, I can see employees and employers alike being afraid to push things to that point because it is not at all clear what a court would decide. 

1 hour ago, cityloyal473 said:

Yep, agree.

Now for those footballers (who I agree with BTW) concerned about health and safety, they are going to have a decision to make should they feel that they don't want to be involved.  If they feel it is not safe, then in my eyes it shouldn't be safe for them until there is a vaccine. With that being years away, they are potentially throwing themselves onto the scrapheap.  

This is where it gets really complex in that there are footballers who have had heart problems and then started playing again (forgotten exactly who at the moment) and there are likely to be footballers who are diabetic (I know Gary Mabbutt famously was and I imagine there must be other players one would think). There are other conditions on the "vulnerable but not shielding" list which would not preclude professional footballers so there are surely going to be players who are potentially at risk from COVID-19 to a greater degree than the general population. The implications of them being pressured to continue, or released from a club on the basis of having a health condition, get really complex legally and morally. 

27 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Save their skins by refunding tickets for games that will not be played with fans? Did you read the article?

I suspect the poster mistakenly thought it was this story:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/13/norwich-want-championship-promotion-scrapped-if-season-does-not-finish

Which is pathetic. Norwich quite rightly have a say in how the Premier League season ends and they are perfectly entitled to have a view on the outcome of that and how relegation issues are settled within the context of the COVID-19 epidemic.

They quite rightly do not have a say on how the football league is resolved and the decision of how promotion is settled is absolutely none of their business. 

The reality is that, if the season cannot be completed, it will be shit, depressing for all involved and financially challenging for many people.

But cancelling Glastonbury was shit, depressing for all involved and financially challenging for many people. Yet Glastonbury nonetheless took the decision. Ditto holidays being cancelled, events being cancelled, businesses, pubs and restaurants being closed. This is a depressing sacrifice but one that has rightly been deemed necessary. I've been fortunate in that I've kept working but everything I was looking forward to this year has been cancelled. Others have had that AND financial damage. The reality is, even when restrictions are lifted, many fans - including some of the longest-serving season ticket holders - will probably be advised to avoid large events or even seeing their loved ones.

All of this is horrible and depressing but it is a sacrifice we have collectively made to contain this virus. Deciding football is immune to that sacrifice and taking unnecessary risks and resources to make football happen will shatter that sense of collective sacrifice, cause resentment to everyone else who is having to cancel things, cause resentment amongst fans that cannot watch matches and create bad feeling as well as genuine risk.

It is a shame we have reached a point where it is in the best interests of everyone that the season cannot be completed but it is in the best interests of everyone that the season not be completed.  Struggling against practicality to try to put it on will achieve nothing and the focus should now be on resolving the season's outcomes in the best and fairest way possible without more matches taking place. And working out plans to run a truncated season (perhaps on a north/south split with play-offs at the end) from January to May 2021. 

2 minutes ago, RedorDead BCFC said:

I was half expecting to be on my own, but the noise around the streets in Chepstow was fantastic 

Yeah - where I am at the moment is pretty rural and not too many houses. I was surprised how loud it was.

6 minutes ago, pillred said:

WHERE are you getting that from?

Figures just came out but being widely reported:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-three-more-deaths-in-scotland-take-uk-total-to-468-11964006

113 today. 

8 minutes ago, pillred said:

Well if that's the case some difficult questions are going to have to be asked because there is no way normal life can be put on hold that long, what the solution is I have no idea but one will have to be found that may include some kind of compromise such as once you have had it you get an exemption certificate from a doctor from all the restrictions currently in place or something like that.

Only issue with that is we still don't know for certain if people who have had it before are definitely immune. There is a small amount of evidence in China that a small proportion of people may test positive again*. In most cases, this is thought to be asymptomatic but may mean people who have had it can still transmit. That would massively complicate things.

*It is also possible that this can be explained by errors in testing. 

5 minutes ago, One Team In Keynsham said:

Who would have thought Wetherspoon would take this sort of action? Were there any signs?

 

I honestly am starting to wonder if Tim Martin and Mike Ashley have made a drunken bet about which one of them can win the title of Britain's Most Obnoxious ***...

18 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

You’re right that we don’t know the actual mortality rate.

But when it comes to risk, people (myself included!) make big mistakes. Making up some numbers, if 99% of “at risk” people die and 1% of “no risk” people die, then in a population of millions/billions you’ll still have lots of over 70s surviving and lots of under 30s dying.

I think a lot of us have assumed we’re safe and are just worrying about older loved ones. But we are not necessarily going to be personally ok, it’s just our age group that will be mostly ok.

Precisely this. The reality is that Italian hospitals have seen high numbers of people in their twenties and thirties being admitted, and NHS doctors are starting to report the same. Most people will make full recoveries - and that includes people who are older or vulnerable as well as younger, healthier people - but all are potentially at risk.  

23 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I wonder if they have the full PM results, people can have underlying conditions or a immune system problem without ever being aware of it.

A friend died in his late 30’s, dropped dead on the beach with his misses and boy there, no previous symptoms, PM revealed a underlying genetic heart condition.  No one had any idea he had it.

Thats not to say we shouldn’t be careful and follow guidelines, but we desperately need the antibody test to see how many have had it with no or mild symptoms.

Indeed. But the key things to me are:

1) Anyone of us could have underlying symptoms without being aware of it. I speak from experience here - I was born with a condition that gradually narrowed my aorta over  time, which was only picked up by chance when I was having some unrelated medial tests as a child. Had it not been for that coincidence, I could very easily have suddenly dropped dead unexpectedly. (So sorry to hear that exact same thing happened to your friend). Of the conditions that make people vulnerable, four of them (cancer, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes) are common impairments that often can be missed by people who do not realise anything is wrong with them.

2) At the moment, there are loads of unknowns. As you say, we don't know how many people have had COVID-19 without realising. We don't know exactly what the mortality rate is and we don't know why, even though older people and people with underlying heart conditions e are most at risk, the majority of those people nonetheless survive yet some people who don't seem to be at risk die. Depending on where you look, you can find people who appear to be well qualified saying 80% of people will catch it and people who appear to be equally well qualified saying it is likely to be much lower. You can also find experts who think the death rate for people with no underlying health conditions to be 0.05 (or one in every 2000 cases) or people who think it is close to 1 in every 100 cases.

In those circumstances, the only sensible thing to do follow the precautionary principle and take every reasonable caution in case the worst case estimates are true. Of course, once a clearer picture emerges, people will have a better way to make informed decisions about the risk and act accordingly. 

More reason to think this isn't just a risk for elderly and vulnerable people and that all of us need to keep ourselves safe:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-briton-21-with-no-existing-health-conditions-dies-after-contracting-covid-19-11963451

On a lighter note, this (pre-lockdown) FB post went a little wrong:

14 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Out of interest I just had a quick look at the death rate per day in the UK, for the last 100 years it's averaged 1450 per day, I wonder how significant this figure is in the overall picture. (obviously significant for those that died), but in a statistical view, could this just be a blip in years to come?

It certainly could but so far the evidence suggests there is reasons that it could not.

Deaths have so far been increasing an average of 30% a day. Today we had 87 deaths, up on 54 yesterday, which is actually a bigger jump than that.

The next week will tell quite a lot. If we get 30% rises each day again, we will be up to around 390 deaths a day. At that point it clearly goes beyond the blip. It all depends on how it increases. 

I'm trying to organise a "night in the pub" with a couple of friends later. It's going to be an interesting thing to try and do via Skype or Zoom. 

My order from Wild Beer arrived quickly and easily so at least I have decent local alcohol...

6 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

How are Germany keeping the fatality rate so much lower than everyone else?

Germany introduced strong social distancing measures the second there was evidence of the potential for widespread transmission and, I think, have tested more than we have. Therefore they know who has got it and have moved as quickly as possible to stop it becoming serious. Time will tell, of course, but they may end up being the most effective country in Europe at tacking the virus.

I think a huge psychological factor might also be the public's approach to catastrophe. Britain has not been invaded since 1066 or suffered a major social upheaval or catastrophe on British soil since 1665. As such, I think we have a certain complacency that everything always works out for the best that has made us slow to react. Germany has a lot of experience of catastrophe and widespread change happening quickly and I think they are a bit better at other countries - such as us and the United States - for preparing for the fact that things sometime go very wrong, very fast and acting accordingly. 

5 minutes ago, Super said:

Michael Gove just said the opposite!

I honestly mean no offence to Gove here but these are new and complex guidelines drawn in the last 24 hours. Not every minister will be fully briefed on them and remember every detail in an interview. Don't forget the Chancellor announced shops were closed in error last week in the announcement around the pubs.

I'd trust the official guidance on gov.uk websites over what ministers say in interviews as there will be points when they get confused. 

4 hours ago, havanatopia said:

He is right about a few of those remarks. Just not PC is it. What a shame.

Ignoring the fact, that this has absolutely nothing to do with being PC or not, what do you think he is right on?

Recapping on what @And Its Smith said:

"Trump talking about virus in past tense. Says normal flu kills more people.  Says economy is back. Moving on. More people will commit suicide if economy is bad than will die from covid. USA wasn’t built to be shut down apparently. "

1) The virus is increasing in America (and indeed the world). It is not in the past tense.

2) It has killed more people over time because this is a new disease but the evidence so far suggests this is both more contagious and has a higher mortality rate over time. Normal flu has killed more people as it has had more time to do so. This is more deadly than flu.

3) Some analysts believe the US stock market might recover if a recovery package is announced and there are a few early signs of reasons for positivity after one of the biggest stock market crashes in history but the economy is in no way "back".

4) You can't really say the economy is moving on at this point.

5) It is likely an economic crash will cause suicides. It is far from clear how many people will die from COVID-19 at the moment but fivethirtyeight found the average consensus amongst epedemiologists was 200, 000 US deaths. It is hard to know how that will compare with the suicide rate.

6) The US is not an exception here. No country was built to be shut down but it not clear how the US could cope with an overwhelmed health service if they do not enact these measures.

So where do you actually think he is right?

Sorry if someone has posted this already but Germany and Italy have evidence that the number of cases may be levelling off. If so, it will be proof that social distancing and the lockdowns do work over time.

At the same time, it may lead to real questions for those countries that did not adopt these measures early on. There may be massive differences in loss of life between countries and that will lead to questions.

The news reporters really could do a much better job of leading by example...

32 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Agreed, and join thousands of others - the bloke is a pompous, self opiniated pr1ck.

The other part of your sentence is best ignored.

I find this attitude utterly, utterly baffling.

I presume what each and everyone of us wants to happen in this crisis is for as many lives to be saved as possible, as few people to be hospitalised as possible and for society to return to as normal as possible as quickly as possible to preserve lives, preserve people's businesses and minimise the harm from this outbreak.

The government has essentially admitted that it made mistakes in the early handling of the crisis, pursued a policy of mitigation and flattening the curve and that this proved to be the wrong strategy. It responded to pressure and criticism by asking people not go to to pubs. We know that asking people not go to pubs did not work and the government responded to pressure and criticism by ordering pubs to be closed. We know that businesses were worried about jobs and the government responded to pressure and criticism by guaranteeing wages. We know it is likely over the few days the government will respond to pressure and criticism about the fact it has not gone as far as other countries by taking further steps over the next few days. All of this is because of pressure and criticism forcing the government to change position, each time saving more lives and preserving more livelihoods.

Yet there seem to be some posters on here who see it as their job to try to stop pressure and criticism and seemingly place their political ideology over that need to save lives by continually defending the government and trying to shut down all criticism. Each time events have proven them wrong and yet they continue to say we should not criticise the government, even though that criticism has changed policy and saved lives.

This situation is not about ideology and it is not about party politics. It is about the government doing the right things to keep people save and, where that is not happening, ensuring the government acts. Anyone who places a need to defend the government and "not make things political" as a priority over criticising the government in the areas where they may not be saving lives utterly, utterly baffles me.