Football tonight
Discussion
Not wishing to start a bunfight, I’m a big sports fan (although mostly rugby union and motorsports) but can someone explain to me how it is that the government are adamant that now is not yet the time to lift the 2m distancing rule and yet the UK and probably many others round the world are watching games here on home grounds where the 2m rule clearly doesn’t apply. I’d like to think it’s gone through a risk assessment process but it’s kind of straight from the Downing st daily update to up close and personal football... WTF? (What am I missing here?)
baconsarney said:
Not wishing to start a bunfight, I’m a big sports fan (although mostly rugby union and motorsports) but can someone explain to me how it is that the government are adamant that now is not yet the time to lift the 2m distancing rule and yet the UK and probably many others round the world are watching games here on home grounds where the 2m rule clearly doesn’t apply. I’d like to think it’s gone through a risk assessment process but it’s kind of straight from the Downing st daily update to up close and personal football... WTF? (What am I missing here?)
Listening to Ian Dennis (I think it was) and Pat Nevin on 5Live tonight the clubs have had to put in place a massive amount of risk mitigation, loads of testing, and basically it sounded like the only time the players aren’t distancing is when the game is in play. I got the impression they’re being very carefully managed. Certainly the two commentators were impressed with the set-up at the Etihad. The issue will be the first player who tests positive and then I guess we will see if it’s well contained Or whether the tracking of contacts leads to loads of staff and players being isolated.
The schedule to complete the season is so packed that a few cases or a minor outbreak amongst players could derail the plans somewhat.
WRT the government and the social distancing thing is that the PL clubs have spent presumably £millions to put in place what they hope will be a watertight system to protect the players and staff.
Still, footballers are just young lads and don’t always follow the rules. Jack Grealish has already been caught out getting pissed-up and crashing his car Outside one of his mates houses after a drinking session in about week 1 of lockdown!!!
baconsarney said:
Not wishing to start a bunfight, I’m a big sports fan (although mostly rugby union and motorsports) but can someone explain to me how it is that the government are adamant that now is not yet the time to lift the 2m distancing rule and yet the UK and probably many others round the world are watching games here on home grounds where the 2m rule clearly doesn’t apply. I’d like to think it’s gone through a risk assessment process but it’s kind of straight from the Downing st daily update to up close and personal football... WTF? (What am I missing here?)
The 2 (or 1,5 or 1) meter distancing rule outsie is nonsense.People do not get Covid outside, but inside and 80% of them during superspread events.
Probably more people involved outside the match getting it to air than on the pitch, though I understand remote production is being used (take the camera feeds to the studios, easier to manage). Certainly on a normal match day for a full on derby can be over 150 at site. That is where my concern would be, a lot of older people involved.
DeltonaS said:
The 2 (or 1,5 or 1) meter distancing rule outsie is nonsense.
People do not get Covid outside, but inside and 80% of them during superspread events.
There is medical evidence to demonstrate that none of the 8m worldwide cases of the virus contracted it outside? You're going to have a hard job convincing me of that - sheer logistics suggest it's bPeople do not get Covid outside, but inside and 80% of them during superspread events.
ks. And how you'd prove it who knows.The distance is a risk mitigator only. That has been made very clear and seems based on logical assumptions - not sure whether that's been scientifically proven either though. But logically it makes far more sense than your statement above (if I'm 1 mile away from you, I'm not going to catch it from you. If I'm 1cm away with you breathing on me, it's far more likely I'll get it).
We have been told that a reduction from 2m to 1m increases the risk between 10x and 30x of contracting it from someone (primarily as an airborne droplets will typically have hit the ground before they hit you).
Whether the risks are worth the pain is very subjective. The people paid to make the decisions here believed it was previously. Lockdowns easing, and distancing rules easing (as and when that happens) will indicate that the balance has changed (because either or both sides of that risk/reward equation have changed.
Has anyone globally made the right choices here? Very difficult, likely impossible to tell. More importantly, one size most definitely does not fit all (I appreciate you being an EU denizen will find that hard to comprehend at times....but it's a fact).
NRL started in Australia a couple of weeks ago with no fans, and then last week they let a limited number (I think 500) back in
Last week one of the games was postponed on Sunday as a player's child had come into contact with a teacher who had tested positive - it was played the next day after tests came back negative. The question that I would have there is how long since contact were the tests and would that be a sufficient incubation period for the negative tests to be accurate?
It's a really tough call. As said many times before the young men involved are not necessarily the ones at risk - are they maintaining distance from possibly vulnerable older relatives for example?
Last week one of the games was postponed on Sunday as a player's child had come into contact with a teacher who had tested positive - it was played the next day after tests came back negative. The question that I would have there is how long since contact were the tests and would that be a sufficient incubation period for the negative tests to be accurate?
It's a really tough call. As said many times before the young men involved are not necessarily the ones at risk - are they maintaining distance from possibly vulnerable older relatives for example?
s2art said:
The risk to the players is near zero. They are in an age cohort that is very low risk, they are fit healthy and full of vit D, they will be tested frequently. So only the support staff offer a problem and that can be managed.
And the families they live with of course.(I'm sympathetic with the argument that they get paid enough to suffer some separation when needed and that if they want the big bucks, additional sacrifices are needed. Doesn't seem to be the way the world works now though, but when I'm in charge it will. Bruhhhhhhaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff