Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th

Dancfc said:
Honestly some of you lot should never leave your house ever again if this 'what if' game is your mindset. Weld your front door and be done with it because if you're looking for a world with literally no risk, there's not one part of the outside world that furfills that desire.

Eventually we have to coexist with this virus, yes people who test positive have to isolate and rightly so but isolating everyone they come into contact with was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up. Say McDonald's open and one employee tests positive. Does that restraunt have to close alongside the workplaces of whoever came into contact with him? What if that covers half the town in questions high street? What if one of those places is an essential bank like Halifax?

Non essential businesses are starting to make plans to open up, none are totally risk free but all are taking the precautions to limit risk. McDonald's is opening up gradually, BBC want EastEnders to resume filming in June etc..

Not opening things up on the off chance isn't sensible, it's stupid, because you end up tanking the economy which will lead to inadequate funding of the NHS and ultimately end up costing most of the lives you think you're saving (plus excess). Restarting business with precautions is the happy medium between both ends of stupid (going back to complete normal and keeping everything shut until the virus is gone, to which point the virus would have long been the least of our worries).

Ultimately with all the precautions being taken (controlled, mass testing, BCD, distancing at every stage humanely possible) footballers will actually be much, much safer than they were in the few weeks leading up to footballs cancellation, when they were playing in full crowds and changing together despite the virus being on the ascendency.
Click to expand...
Non essential business are in no way comparable to contact sports.

Its a ridiculous argument your making.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
If Premier League footballers - the biggest "role models" around (especially amongst young people) - are allowed to play a contact sport then that's social distancing over with. If they can do it, then people will think they can do it, getting together in mates' houses to watch the games on TV and have a few drinks. And who can blame them? Can't be having one rule for multi millionaire footballers and another rule for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Said this about 50 pages ago.

People wont listen to any social distancing advice if they see 22 players x 10 matches x twice a week not doing it
 
Alabaster Codify7 said:
Lot of unhappy people on this planet mate. Lots of them have been unhappy and isolated for donkeys years, and are now finally feeling 'normal' because the entire world has been drawn down to their level. So of course, these people have a vested interest and desire to want this shit to continue indefinitely - they finally don't feel alone or weird, because everyone else is in the same position.

After this shit ends, which it will MUCH sooner than most realise (and by end, I mean the world keeps ticking, rather than the virus goes away), a LOT of people are going to need medication to even leave their gardens to get food. It's terrifying really, a lot of people are going to be destroyed mentally by this because right now they're being told that opening their front door means a 50/50 chance of dying and they believe it.
Click to expand...
The first part of your post is total nonsense and as someone whos brother suffers from loneliness and depression and has attempted suicide in the past, quite frankly, your an absolute prick
 
TheLord said:
Does working at McDonald's, a bank or a supermarket require one man to barge into another repeatedly? Make hundreds of intimate contacts during the mere matter of an hour? Literally breathe down someone else's throat?

Physical distancing is impossible in contact sports like football. Impossible. It is shocking to see the lack of insight when you attempt to make parallels.
Click to expand...
@Brightonian made detailed posts a few days back that basically counter everything you said and explains in detail why inclosed working is actually more risky than controlled environments like BCD football.

I hope for the sake of consistency you display similar outrage once Rugby announces a return.
 
My biggest fear is playing the PL , voiding the FA Cup , making the Europa League unplayable due to travel , Utd not making CL next year and Liverpool winning the league.
It’s a possibility unfortunately.
 
hmchan said:
It's difficult to define "close contact", but it generally refers to face-to-face contact for at least 15 mins, so a few conversations in daily life are fine especially with surgical masks on. On the pitch, however, it's a different story. Players don't wear masks in a game and they could do all sorts of high risk behaviors, from whispering, hugging, to spitting, headbutting, biting, you name it.
Click to expand...
cyberman said:
Newly released study from Aarhus University shows that a risk of infection of Covid-19 is minimal doing outdoors sports as soccer. A soccer player will only spend an average of 1,5 minutes on the football field near another player: “The body contact is minimal and it should be safe to play”

Copied from reddit. So thats something
Click to expand...
 
The fact 3 players in 1 german club have caught it a few days after training together says otherwise
 
Dancfc said:
And again @Brightonian explained why they actually carry for risk.
Click to expand...
Well my wife works in a shop that has been opened throughout all this and would beg to differ with everything he said as i told him at the time.

Social distancing and other things can be implemented safely in a shop.

Hers has 10 staff and all have worked throughout this whole ordeal
 
Dancfc said:
@Brightonian made detailed posts a few days back that basically counter everything you said and explains in detail why inclosed working is actually more risky than controlled environments like BCD football.

I hope for the sake of consistency you display similar outrage once Rugby announces a return.
Click to expand...

He did make a post but it wasn't that detailed and didn't say anything particularly interesting that we don't already know. Not sure why you're using it as some kind of benchmark piece on the subject. I disagreed with the majority of what was written.
 

So how exactly did so many football players catch it earlier than? Disproportionately high numbers in Italy for example.

Btw, there were also studies in the beginning of the pandemic which were saying that mass gatherings outside like football games were absolutely safe. That's how Liverpool vs Atletico went on, and we've seen where it's gone to.

Italian epidemiologists are fairly certain that Atalanta - Valencia game helped spread it like bushfire, but you seem to be glad to dismiss all those findings because they don't suit your agenda.
 
Red00012 said:
My biggest fear is playing the PL , voiding the FA Cup , making the Europa League unplayable due to travel , Utd not making CL next year and Liverpool winning the league.
It’s a possibility unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Biggest fear?
Id say the biggest fear, snd obviously a sporting context only, would be no football for a couple of years. It's already inevitable there won't be going to games until 2021.

Liverpool will be declared champs this season, so i'd probably get used to that.
 
Pexbo said:
Coronavirus isn’t an injury, it’s a global pandemic which is the entire reason they stopped play in the first place. If you're not able to suggest a fair arbitrary number of players out with coronavirus that would stop play, you're proving you don’t have any sort of understanding about the problem.

If one player is out, the entire squad should be quarantined.
Click to expand...
The only way any of this works is, if it can be guaranteed that there's almost a zero percent chance that someone infected enters the pitch and the surrounding area. If that can be achieved, with extensive testing and some social distancing measures in place, that would effectively eliminate the need to quarantine the entire team if one player is infected. Is this possible? Probably. Is it viable? I don't know, probably not at this point in time.

Either way it doesn't matter to my argument, because I didn't compare COVID-19 to injuries, I didn't at all express an opinion about the viability of the league returning or about any moral implications of keeping the players safe/unsafe. I specifically answered the question "Should they play without them - is that fair?", with the preface, that in isolation, playing with less than a full squad of players is completely fair and quite usual, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it should happen in this particular situation.

I am disputing this one particular point in his argument, that is completely nonsensical. Players missing games is not unfair. The idea is, if you're completely convinced that only your way of thinking is correct and there's no debate to had, you should be able to prove that with solid, bulletproof, thought-out arguments and not pile on weaker ones with the hope that it makes your stance look stronger.
 
This thread is quite interesting. It's now turned to those that are crazy desperate to get football going again belittling and being condescending to anyone who disagrees or believes otherwise. It's even got to the point where the view is that if you don't think football should resume at the moment you're a snowflake and have some kind of mental insecurity.

I'm quite sure it's the reverse tbh and those with all of the bravado and forceful opinion on others are those with the insecurities and they are simply trying to project.
 
Feeling a little out of the loop on all this, but maybe everyone's a bit in the dark.

What's likely to happen with the transfer window if leagues are taking different approaches to finishing/ending on different dates? How are contracts being honoured if the season is continued beyond it's normal end-point? Will loans be concluded as agreed?

Surely with some major European leagues clearly prioritising being able to start from the 20/21 season when they return, that's got to incentivise most leagues to follow suit. Otherwise it could be absolute chaos.

What I want to see happen changes pretty much on a daily basis. I am desperate to have football back asap. But it would be utterly farcical if teams are constantly having players test positive and drop out of squads/having whole chunks of a squad missing for weeks.
 
Bosnian_fan said:
So how exactly did so many football players catch it earlier than? Disproportionately high numbers in Italy for example.

Btw, there were also studies in the beginning of the pandemic which were saying that mass gatherings outside like football games were absolutely safe. That's how Liverpool vs Atletico went on, and we've seen where it's gone to.

Italian epidemiologists are fairly certain that Atalanta - Valencia game helped spread it like bushfire, but you seem to be glad to dismiss all those findings because they don't suit your agenda.
Click to expand...
That little rant would be all well and good if I was suggesting bringing crowds back.

But I'm not, but then I'm guessing that doesn't suit your agenda.
 
Snafu17 said:
The only way any of this works is, if it can be guaranteed that there's almost a zero percent chance that someone infected enters the pitch and the surrounding area. If that can be achieved, with extensive testing and some social distancing measures in place, that would effectively eliminate the need to quarantine the entire team if one player is infected. Is this possible? Probably. Is it viable? I don't know, probably not at this point in time.

Either way it doesn't matter to my argument, because I didn't compare COVID-19 to injuries, I didn't at all express an opinion about the viability of the league returning or about any moral implications of keeping the players safe/unsafe. I specifically answered the question "Should they play without them - is that fair?", with the preface, that in isolation, playing with less than a full squad of players is completely fair and quite usual, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it should happen in this particular situation.

I am disputing this one particular point in his argument, that is completely nonsensical, with or without context. Players missing games is not unfair. The idea is, if you're completely convinced that only your way of thinking is correct and there's no debate to had, you should be able to prove that with solid, bulletproof, thought-out arguments and not pile on weaker ones with the hope that it makes your stance look stronger.
Click to expand...

Why would he not be allowed to enter pitch and surrounding area. If you don't quarantine entire team that went into close contact with that player (and it is the golden standard in all industries, not just football), why would it matter whether he steps on pitch or not? Assuming he doesn't feel sick of course.
 
TheReligion said:
He did make a post but it wasn't that detailed and didn't say anything particularly interesting that we don't already know. Not sure why you're using it as some kind of benchmark piece on the subject. I disagreed with the majority of what was written.
Click to expand...
And from what I can recall he had a counter argument to pretty much everything that was thrown on him, to which point he was re hit by stuff he already countered.
 
Snafu17 said:
I don't know what to tell you, is there a cut off point in fairness with injuries?

I don't have any answers regarding the potential comeback, I'm just pointing out that players being unable to play is not unfair, it's a thing that happens literally all the time.
Click to expand...

Are you wilfully playing silly buggers?

It's pretty obvious why players getting the virus is much more of a problem than normal injuries.
 
Dancfc said:
And from what I can recall he had a counter argument to pretty much everything that was thrown on him, to which point he was re hit by stuff he already countered.
Click to expand...

Not really. Much, if not all, of what he said was subjective and based on his own opinion. As is much of this thread.
 
Dancfc said:
Honestly some of you lot should never leave your house ever again if this 'what if' game is your mindset. Weld your front door and be done with it because if you're looking for a world with literally no risk, there's not one part of the outside world that furfills that desire.

Eventually we have to coexist with this virus, yes people who test positive have to isolate and rightly so but isolating everyone they come into contact with was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up. Say McDonald's open and one employee tests positive. Does that restraunt have to close alongside the workplaces of whoever came into contact with him? What if that covers half the town in questions high street? What if one of those places is an essential bank like Halifax?

Non essential businesses are starting to make plans to open up, none are totally risk free but all are taking the precautions to limit risk. McDonald's is opening up gradually, BBC want EastEnders to resume filming in June etc..

Not opening things up on the off chance isn't sensible, it's stupid, because you end up tanking the economy which will lead to inadequate funding of the NHS and ultimately end up costing most of the lives you think you're saving (plus excess). Restarting business with precautions is the happy medium between both ends of stupid (going back to complete normal and keeping everything shut until the virus is gone, to which point the virus would have long been the least of our worries).

Ultimately with all the precautions being taken (controlled, mass testing, BCD, distancing at every stage humanely possible) footballers will actually be much, much safer than they were in the few weeks leading up to footballs cancellation, when they were playing in full crowds and changing together despite the virus being on the ascendency.
Click to expand...

To answer one bit..yes a McDonalds would obviously have to be closed and deep cleaned very thoroughly if someone working there was found positive.
 
TheReligion said:
This thread is quite interesting. It's now turned to those that are crazy desperate to get football going again belittling and being condescending to anyone who disagrees or believes otherwise. It's even got to the point where the view is that if you don't think football should resume at the moment you're a snowflake and have some kind of mental insecurity.

I'm quite sure it's the reverse tbh and those with all of the bravado and forceful opinion on others are those with the insecurities and they are simply trying to project.
Click to expand...

You're 100% right!
 
TheReligion said:
This thread is quite interesting. It's now turned to those that are crazy desperate to get football going again belittling and being condescending to anyone who disagrees or believes otherwise. It's even got to the point where the view is that if you don't think football should resume at the moment you're a snowflake and have some kind of mental insecurity.
Click to expand...
And on the flip side, if you want football back your branded as some sort of re born Fred West (including hilariously by some one who's main activity on here is discussing the potential Jadon Sancho to United transfer).
 
Dancfc said:
That little rant would be all well and good if I was suggesting bringing crowds back.

But I'm not, but then I'm guessing that doesn't suit your agenda.
Click to expand...

No, actually it has nothing to do with the crowds, nobody in their right frame of mind would suggest anything about the crowds. My point was, anyone can find "expert" opinions that fit their agenda for pretty much anything. Less than two months ago, certain experts were saying that it's safe to play in front of the crowds, while pretty much everything was pointing otherwise.

Same way, this Aarhus study could be proven to be tottaly of the mark. Which I certainly hope we don't have to learn the hard way. If three Koln players have been contaminated just by training, how can we guarantee safety to others?
 
Alabaster Codify7 said:
Lot of unhappy people on this planet mate. Lots of them have been unhappy and isolated for donkeys years, and are now finally feeling 'normal' because the entire world has been drawn down to their level. So of course, these people have a vested interest and desire to want this shit to continue indefinitely - they finally don't feel alone or weird, because everyone else is in the same position.

After this shit ends, which it will MUCH sooner than most realise (and by end, I mean the world keeps ticking, rather than the virus goes away), a LOT of people are going to need medication to even leave their gardens to get food. It's terrifying really, a lot of people are going to be destroyed mentally by this because right now they're being told that opening their front door means a 50/50 chance of dying and they believe it.
Click to expand...

Do you really think people actually want this miserable half a life status to continue?
What an odd suggestion.
 
Dancfc said:
And on the flip side, if you want football back your branded as some sort of re born Fred West (including hilariously by some one who's main activity on here is discussing the potential Jadon Sancho to United transfer).
Click to expand...

There's exchange going back and forth but I don't think the "hang on and wait" or "cancel" brigade have started calling others mentally ill.

Just seems pretty crass to me at a time when mental health issues are quite prevalent in society.
 
Dancfc said:
Does that go for every walk of life?

If one person gets infected once McDonalds is open, does it shut again alongside the businesses who hold any employee that came into contact with him? What if that includes an essential bank? Or a supermarket?

Isolating mass people on one positive result was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up, it's not sustainable long term.
Click to expand...
As testing becomes easier and more prevalent then finding infected people early and isolating their main contacts will very much be the way forward in reducing the numbers infected. Some believe Covid can be eliminated with this strategy, but even if not it would greatly reduce the number of deaths occurring.

So the answer to your question is that a branch of McDonalds likely would have to close for a fortnight if the staff were infected, yes.

I don't know if you're deliberately wumming or just not thinking about what you post, either way you might be better slowing it down a bit.
 
Dancfc said:
That little rant would be all well and good if I was suggesting bringing crowds back.

But I'm not, but then I'm guessing that doesn't suit your agenda.
Click to expand...

Ah the classic "agenda".

Never change redcafe :-)
 
Bosnian_fan said:
Why would he not be allowed to enter pitch and surrounding area. If you don't quarantine entire team that went into close contact with that player (and it is the golden standard in all industries, not just football), why would it matter whether he steps on pitch or not? Assuming he doesn't feel sick of course.
Click to expand...
You're supposed to test players and staff if their infected every time before they congregate in an area where the conditions for the spread of the virus are good. So if you find a carrier you pull them out of the process, which should significantly reduce the chance of others getting infected.

It's the golden standard because no one is tested at the rate that anybody involved in restarting the league should be. Of course, that's not something that's necessarily sensible to do for a while yet.
 
Sandikan said:
Are you wilfully playing silly buggers?

It's pretty obvious why players getting the virus is much more of a problem than normal injuries.
Click to expand...
I'm talking specifically about fairness here. Would it be fair if Cologne play with two players on the sidelines? Yes, it would be fair, that's not unusual.
 
TheReligion said:
This thread is quite interesting. It's now turned to those that are crazy desperate to get football going again belittling and being condescending to anyone who disagrees or believes otherwise. It's even got to the point where the view is that if you don't think football should resume at the moment you're a snowflake and have some kind of mental insecurity.

I'm quite sure it's the reverse tbh and those with all of the bravado and forceful opinion on others are those with the insecurities and they are simply trying to project.
Click to expand...

Here is TheReligion a few pages ago

TheReligion said:
If anyone thinks we are close to seeing the return of PL football you're a mug.
Click to expand...

Awww why is everyone else so condesending :D
 
TheReligion said:
This thread is quite interesting. It's now turned to those that are crazy desperate to get football going again belittling and being condescending to anyone who disagrees or believes otherwise. It's even got to the point where the view is that if you don't think football should resume at the moment you're a snowflake and have some kind of mental insecurity.

I'm quite sure it's the reverse tbh and those with all of the bravado and forceful opinion on others are those with the insecurities and they are simply trying to project.
Click to expand...

I find it most interesting to read how some people genuinely believe football will be back soon.
As despite the constant propoganda from the FA it all looks utterly impossible for the forseeable.
 
I'm assuming the "agenda" some people are meant to have regarding wanting the season finished now is they don't want Liverpool to win the league? Despite the fact they may still be given it anyway, finishing now actually hurts United and no one wants the world to remain like this, I'm not really sure this is a fantastic agenda to have really? Anyone?

Whilst on the other side of the fence those pushing like crazy have a clear, selfish agenda for wanting it to carry on.

Hmmmm.
 
Snafu17 said:
I'm talking specifically about fairness here. Would it be fair if Cologne play with two players on the sidelines? Yes, it would be fair, that's not unusual.
Click to expand...

let’s expand on fairness then. Is it fair that Liverpool have played City at Anfield but under these new proposals will play the next game at a neutral venue?
 
Sandikan said:
I find it most interesting to read how some people genuinely believe football will be back soon.
As despite the constant propoganda from the FA it all looks utterly impossible for the forseeable.
Click to expand...

I think this is it really isn't it. Clear head banging against the wall moment. I think most people wonder why the big panic and rush over it when it's essentially a game. There's much more going on at the moment throughout the world which is far more important than trying to shoehorn 9 games of football in.

Sandikan said:
Top referencing!
Click to expand...

Meh it would be if it made any sense
 
711 said:
As testing becomes easier and more prevalent then finding infected people early and isolating their main contacts will very much be the way forward in reducing the numbers infected. Some believe Covid can be eliminated with this strategy, but even if not it would greatly reduce the number of deaths occurring.

So the answer to your question is that a branch of McDonalds likely would have to close for a fortnight if the staff were infected, yes.

I don't know if you're deliberately wumming or just not thinking about what you post, either way you might be better slowing it down a bit.
Click to expand...
The reality is if we keep closing things down on one case long term we'd effectively be in a lockdown again which will kill the economy and then deny funding to the NHS and therefore contradict the entire reason we took this caution in the first place. So to play hypothetics we shut Maccies down plus every single person the man in question comes into contact with, if those include employees of essential supermarkets and banks then what? Shut them down aswell?

At some point society has to find a way to co exist with this virus because if it doesn't then the virus will become the least of our problems.
 
Snafu17 said:
You're supposed to test players and staff if their infected every time before they congregate in an area where the conditions for the spread of the virus are good. So if you find a carrier you pull them out of the process, which should significantly reduce the chance of other getting infected.

It's the golden standard because no one is tested at the rate that anybody involved in restarting the league should be. Of course, that's not something that's necessarily sensible to do for a while yet.
Click to expand...

But isn't it excess risk, knowing that the virus has a five to 14 day incubation period, with some pointing that it could be even longer? So, a player is tested today and is negative/false negative/whatever but is actually a carrier, or becomes one in between the moment of testing and receiveing results. Trains with teammates, spreads the thing around, tests positive tommorow. He is out, but his teammates, who are not quarantineed and separated out, become carriers. It's enough to have one of them catch it, two of them is disaster already.

Still it's not impossible to continue, but what if someone has complications, and ends up in coma like that Montpellier player a week or so ago? I mean, when is the breaking point, when someone dies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.