Players scared to go back to football

[the third man]

4 hours ago, kobayashi said:

The probability and seriousness to Aguero and every other player of a "normal" serious football injury is significantly greater than coronavirus.

But him getting injured cant infect his family as well

 

and where have you got your data from? no football has been played yet in the lockdown

[Harrysgame]

7 hours ago, ChapSmurf said:

I think they are right to be scared and they have every right in my opinoin to refuse to play, unless their health and safety is absolutely guaranteed. The same as any person in any working environment.

 

I'm sure Gordan Taylor and the PFA will be representing them and highlighting any and all concerns, before a ball is even kicked.

With the players on this one, how can they social distance? Testing would need testing several times a day, as who's to say when and if they caught it. No way can a game of football be described as essential work or a footballèr a key worker. If so what about rugby, jockeys, hockey, cycling etc. That's before you factor all those who will turn up.

Can you imagine the lawsuit if a player catches it from playing and surely a player could refuse to play under H and S guidelines about safe working environments.

Why won't the PL, FA EFL realise a game is not as important as people's lives or their families.

[Guest]

I wish they'd just call it. Null and void. 

[the third man]

16 minutes ago, Harrysgame said:

With the players on this one, how can they social distance? Testing would need testing several times a day, as who's to say when and if they caught it. No way can a game of football be described as essential work or a footballèr a key worker. If so what about rugby, jockeys, hockey, cycling etc. That's before you factor all those who will turn up.

Can you imagine the lawsuit if a player catches it from playing and surely a player could refuse to play under H and S guidelines about safe working environments.

Why won't the PL, FA EFL realise a game is not as important as people's lives or their families.

If it does take 300 people to put a game on, as the Germans say, then its OK to open pubs, cafes restaurants etc as well, and I can't see those being open any time soon 

[sherlyegg]

2 hours ago, kobayashi said:

I think the risk of Aguero having to nip around to his nan's in Wythenshawe to cut the lawn is probably not too significant.

More widely nobody has been able to see elderly relatives for the last couple of months so I'm sure most of the 20-something footballers could cope with the "emotional torment" of separation for a few weeks longer if necessary.

 

 

 

I suppose you have never seen a two-year old having a coughing fit, i have recentley ...very scary and heartbreaking. Nope, didn't die but very ill for a week. Only deaths count..

So the point is, which you seem to have missed, why the foook should I care a foook about making sure sky don't lose money, because that's what it boils down to.

Btw, you would have made excellent cannon fodder between 1914-18

 

[kobayashi]

14 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

I suppose you have never seen a two-year old having a coughing fit, i have recentley ...very scary and heartbreaking. Nope, didn't die but very ill for a week. Only deaths count..

So the point is, which you seem to have missed, why the foook should I care a foook about making sure sky don't lose money, because that's what it boils down to.

Btw, you would have made excellent cannon fodder between 1914-18

 

BTW I wouldn’t but equally I have no intention of spending my life hiding as it would seem many would prefer. This problem is not going anywhere soon so the sooner people get their head around that fact and develop a bit of resolve to find a way to get on with life the better.

[kobayashi]

1 hour ago, the third man said:

But him getting injured cant infect his family as well

 

and where have you got your data from? no football has been played yet in the lockdown

In Italy there have +25000 deaths of which 10 have been in the under 30s. Tragic for those Individuals but statistically from a population in that age group of 20 million insignificant and a fraction of the under 30s that will have died from other illnesses and injuries in the same time- last year 2500 under 5s died in Italy that’s 50 per week. None of it is very palatable but unfortunately that’s how it is.

[handworth52]

2 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

In Italy there have +25000 deaths of which 10 have been in the under 30s. Tragic for those Individuals but statistically from a population in that age group of 20 million insignificant and a fraction of the under 30s that will have died from other illnesses and injuries in the same time- last year 2500 under 5s died in Italy that’s 50 per week. None of it is very palatable but unfortunately that’s how it is.

ive been stating this fact which it clearly is that anyone healthy under 50 (what don't work in nhs and who are under great danger) have far more chance of a heart attack than losing there life to covid 19 its a proven fact . look at the daily stats every day it tells you how many have sadly died and 95% have underlaying illness ,today only 18 didn't have an underlaying  illness and were between 43 and 98 years old , ive met many people what have had this even in there  mid eighties and its hardly touched them , all people are doing is seeing these horrendous figures of deaths but quite clearly 99.9% are either elderly or have health issues ,if you are in those brackets then you seriously need to avoid people until a vaccine is available. as far as football goes its finished ,the sooner all these earning disgusting wages get there contracts torn up the better . men and woman went to war to properly risk there lives they were the ones at risk of having a bullet in there head and these wet fishes(footballers)  are frightened for there lives omg. sorry if you don't agree but im right. 

[scram]

You do know quite a lot of professional players have "underlying health conditions". Don't you?

[kobayashi]

51 minutes ago, scram said:

You do know quite a lot of professional players have "underlying health conditions". Don't you?

In which case they will received the government instruction to "shield" and will not be able to participate. I have two employees in this category but it doesn't stop the rest of us getting on with things. 

[DJMortimer]

 

"Carry on, it will be fine."

[DJMortimer]

 

Quote

New research says players at risk of coronavirus spread to lungs

 

Research from Germany and Italy suggests that footballers and other athletes face a particular risk of the coronavirus infecting their lungs, raising major questions over attempts to restart professional football.

The research, produced by Italian immunologists and lung specialists based at institutes in Berlin, Rome and Verona, suggests that due to strenuous exercise, elite athletes are more likely to inhale virus particles and direct them to the lower areas of the lung.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, can cause lung damage and complications such as pneumonia and, in severe cases, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

The preprint paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, also suggests that athletes who are asymptomatic could make their condition worse by infecting their lungs during strenuous exertion.

Football has ground to a halt in all major leagues in Europe and none have yet to resume. European soccer's governing body UEFA has set a May 25 deadline for leagues to outline their plans to re-start.

Leagues, governing bodies and clubs, however, have said they will only return when play is safe and that they will take medical advice.

In their paper: "The First, Comprehensive Immunological Model of COVID-19", Paolo Matricardi, Roberto Dal ***** and Roberto Nisini raise questions over the safety of playing while the virus remains at large.

"The pattern of breathing during strenuous exercise changes dramatically by a tremendous increase of ventilation (i.e.: inspiratory and expiratory volumes of air), and of alveolar ventilation in particular," the authors state.

The researchers state that the "ideal lungs" of athletes, while helpful in normal conditions, significantly favour the deep inhalation of infectious agents.

"Even the SARS-CoV-2 can then spread more easily to the deepest areas of the lungs during strenuous exercise, and there start its aggressive action," they said.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the name given to the 2019 novel coronavirus. COVID-19 is the name given to the disease associated with the virus.

"Not by chance, a great proportion of professional football players claimed the occurrence of fever, dry cough and malaise (and dyspnea in some cases) immediately after, or a few hours following their last official match," note the authors.

• ASYMPTOMATIC ATHLETES

Adding to the dangers, the research says that players who have the virus but do not show symptoms, could make their condition worse by allowing the virus to move from their upper to lower airways.

Asymptomatic but infected athletes could exhale or eliminate aerosolised particles that may contain viruses which are then re-inhaled.

"These droplets or aerosol might be re-inhaled and facilitate the spread of the virus from the upper to the lower airways," the paper states.

The authors also look at the risk of the virus being transmitted during a game.

"In sports where many athletes are in close contact, such as team sports or marathons, the same particles have high chances to be inhaled by other athletes, facilitating viral transmission.

"To emphasize that strenuous exercise induces a much more frequent spitting of secretions and this can further contribute to the environmental SARS-CoV-2 spreading, particularly if the distancing recommendations are not strictly followed."

A separate new study from Aarhus University, in Denmark, looking at how much exposure players would have to a single infected player on the field, showed that, on average, a player is positioned within an 'exposure zone' for one minute and 28 seconds during a match.

On Tuesday, the World Players Association, which represents some 85,000 athletes from different sports in over 60 countries, said competitors should not be rushed back to action.

“At the moment there is a lot of pressure from the leagues on all continents to resume,” WPA Executive Director Brendan Schwab told Reuters in an interview.

“The players can only agree to that (return) if they know that their interests will be protected. "

Soccer's global players' union FIFPro has also urged caution. “We need guidance and protocols on how to return in a healthy and safe manner. Football is a contact sport and we feel very high protection standards are required,” said FIFPro secretary general Jonas Baer-Hoffmann.

 

https://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/new-research-says-players-at-risk-of-coronavirus-spread-to-lungs_sto7737107/story.shtml

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by DJMortimer

[ChapSmurf]

3 hours ago, Harrysgame said:

With the players on this one, how can they social distance? Testing would need testing several times a day, as who's to say when and if they caught it. No way can a game of football be described as essential work or a footballèr a key worker. If so what about rugby, jockeys, hockey, cycling etc. That's before you factor all those who will turn up.

Can you imagine the lawsuit if a player catches it from playing and surely a player could refuse to play under H and S guidelines about safe working environments.

Why won't the PL, FA EFL realise a game is not as important as people's lives or their families.

 

So am I and they can't, it's impossible unless they all refuse to challenge for the ball, or make a tackle. That's hardly a game of football at that point. The sport (any sport) is totally irrelevant at this moment in time: peoples live are.

 

To be honest, it doesn't need to go as far as any of the governing bodies of the sport, because the health and social care of employees stops at the employer, and that is the club that the players are contracted to. It's the clubs legal duty to ensure that the health and social care of all it's employees is upheld, and therefore until such times as players can be tested on a very regular basis, I very much doubt any club would risk breaching this legislation. Ergo, no football under the current climate.

[ChapSmurf]

6 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

One Bundeslige report estimated 300 people would be required to stage a single match (perhaps that could be reduced somewhat in lower divisions?). There's 46 of them scheduled in the average football weekend at professional level in this country, and at least 9 sets of fixtures remaining. Not including the FA Cup or the league play-offs, you'd be directly exposing somewhere in the region of 100,000 individuals to end the league campaign. The number of people they would subsequently come into contact with, directly or indirectly, would be multiple times that number. And all that assumes not a single supporter turns up, which as we've already seen elsewhere is highly unlikely.

 

 

I don't want to tear your post apart, because I agree with you entirely, but it's not 100,000 individuals, it's 13,800. It's ~100,000 potential contacts with others, but if 300 people are required at each game, and there are 46 games a weekend, that's 13.800 individuals, assuming each game will involve unique individuals (the same technicain for instance my setup things at a number of games each weekend). As the same teams will be playing each other over the next 8 fixtures, then the same individuals will be at each game, baring injuries/illness.

 

It's still a big number, but with R currently standing at 0.6 to 0.9, the rate of infection will be a maximum of 12420, based on R0.9, and based on all individuals testing positve. That won't be the case of course, as not all will be positive. However, that's not the point and the point you were making still stands.

 

I just wanted to make sure we are all using the correct numbers. Sorry.

[Blue and white]

4 hours ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

The mayor of Liverpool was right yesterday when he said it'd be impossible to stop their fans congregating outside Anfield if the season continued. Even at a neutral ground etc some of them would still try and travel to it.

 

I still think there's absolutely no chance if the football league resuming, but the Premier League are really going to try. Hopefully they fail. 

I remember some of them turning up to a certain game at s6 without tickets 

[scram]

49 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

In which case they will received the government instruction to "shield" and will not be able to participate. I have two employees in this category but it doesn't stop the rest of us getting on with things. 

 

 

Nobody is stopping the rest of you getting on with things - but what if a team has say 3 critical players who are in a higher risk group?

 

Just get on with it without your best players - like any club would accept that?

 

If football is no longer safe for any players who were participating safely prior to this pandemic then it's not safe now 

 

I don't see how anybody can argue that

 

And crucially i doubt the players and their union would stand for it either

[devonshire owl]

Anyone asked what the referee's etc think of all this,and how it effects them.

[DJMortimer]

1 hour ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

I don't want to tear your post apart, because I agree with you entirely, but it's not 100,000 individuals, it's 13,800. It's ~100,000 potential contacts with others, but if 300 people are required at each game, and there are 46 games a weekend, that's 13.800 individuals, assuming each game will involve unique individuals (the same technicain for instance my setup things at a number of games each weekend). As the same teams will be playing each other over the next 8 fixtures, then the same individuals will be at each game, baring injuries/illness.

 

It's still a big number, but with R currently standing at 0.6 to 0.9, the rate of infection will be a maximum of 12420, based on R0.9, and based on all individuals testing positve. That won't be the case of course, as not all will be positive. However, that's not the point and the point you were making still stands.

 

I just wanted to make sure we are all using the correct numbers. Sorry.

 

No problem. But my total comes from multiplying that weekly number upwards by the 9 sets of fixtures that are left (not including the FA cup and league play-offs) to complete the season.

 

In terms of infection, even if every last one of those people are the same for every game, it's still the same number of potential carriers as if they were all different. If you're not infected one week, there's no guarantee you won't be the following one.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by DJMortimer

[ChapSmurf]

16 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

No problem. But my total comes from multiplying that weekly number upwards by the 9 sets of fixtures that are left (not including the FA cup and league play-offs) to complete the season.

 

In terms of infection, even if every last one of those people are the same for every game, it's still the same number of potential carriers as if they were all different. If you're not infected one week, there's no guarantee you won't be the following one.

 

 

I thought it was 8 fixtures, but unless I'm cracking up, would the same number of people not be involved in each fixture (give or take), therefore the number would only be roughly what I suggested, rather than a being a number equal to the multiplication of the fixtures? Put it another way, if 300 people were involved per game in one weekend of Championship football, would there not be 150 people from the previous game involved in the next? And the other 150 involved in another game?

 

If my numbers are correct, being the smaller of the two we are debating, it's still way too many. If your numbers are correct, it's just too scary to contemplate.

 

It's certainly ~100,000 contacts over the number of games, and that is probably what counts more. As you said, one week a player isn't infected, but the next week who knows.

Edited May 1, 2020 by ChapSmurf

[Señor Sam]

3 Cologne players test positive.

 

https://the18.com/soccer-news/fc-cologne-training-three-test-positive-covid-19