Jump to content
@owlstalk

Players scared to go back to football

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, handworth52 said:

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. 

There's a bit of difference between risking your life to defend civilisation and humanity and putting your life at risk because someone wants to watch you kick a ball around because they are a bit bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, prowl said:

There's a bit of difference between risking your life to defend civilisation and humanity and putting your life at risk because someone wants to watch you kick a ball around because they are a bit bored.

There would be but the statistics in every country say that they wouldn’t. So far the  probability of an Italian under 30 dyeing fro Corona Italy through the worst outbreak in the world are 1 in 2 million and more likely those  unfortunate 10 that have died had some underlying condition. The risks of any number of other illnesses or accidents are far greater but somehow people live from day-to-day. 
 

Fit and healthy 25 year olds are not dyeing of this disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kobayashi said:

There would be but the statistics in every country say that they wouldn’t. So far the  probability of an Italian under 30 dyeing fro Corona Italy through the worst outbreak in the world are 1 in 2 million and more likely those  unfortunate 10 that have died had some underlying condition. The risks of any number of other illnesses or accidents are far greater but somehow people live from day-to-day. 
 

Fit and healthy 25 year olds are not dyeing of this disease.

Isn't the problem that those people unknowingly give it to older people? We can't lock up everybody over 65 forever so we have to find another way out of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kobayashi said:

There would be but the statistics in every country say that they wouldn’t. So far the  probability of an Italian under 30 dyeing fro Corona Italy through the worst outbreak in the world are 1 in 2 million and more likely those  unfortunate 10 that have died had some underlying condition. The risks of any number of other illnesses or accidents are far greater but somehow people live from day-to-day. 
 

Fit and healthy 25 year olds are not dyeing of this disease.

 

You keep treating this as if we only have to be concerned about footballers. To what extent are you going to test all of them to ensure they don't have underlying health conditions? What of the recent research that extended periods of exercise might make you more prone to serious effects from the virus?

 

Imperial College London, who are playing a leading role advising SAGE, estimated that if half of the world were ultimately to be infected at some stage, it would result in half a million deaths worldwide amongst the under 30s, including around 4,500 in this country. Some studies in China and the United States are also suggesting that the effects may be worse in very young children than was first thought, with over 10% of them suffering "severe and critical" illness following infection. According to the CDC, of the first 2,500 Americans to be hospitalised, a fifth of them were between the ages of 20 and 44, with that age group accounting for 12% of those submitted to intensive care. Obviously, research is still in it's early stages in many arenas and the picture will keep changing, but hoping for the best on the back of selective statistics doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.

 

Two estimates I've seen now are that 300 people would be required to stage even one top flight professional match. In the Premier League there are still 92 of them left to play this season. So that would be over 27,000 potential exposures just in the first instance. Are you going to ensure they all come into the 20-40 age bracket? What are you going to do to ensure they do not pass it on to those more vulnerable afterwards? Keeping them from elder relatives might be straightforward enough, but it is the indirect transmission that is the hidden danger. How many does that initial 27,000 become? And all that assumes that not a single supporter shows up, which has already proven to be wishful thinking in at least two countries.

 

Then there's the Championship, Leagues One and Two, the FA Cup and the EFL Play-Offs. It's difficult to imagine all those involved in other major events sitting quietly at home watching the football with a cold one. It's clear that we cannot continue like this indefinitely for many different reasons but that doesn't excuse a glib shrug of the shoulders to the consequences, especially for something of comparatively modest importance to the overall bigger picture of society returning to normal. All a bit like the (probably simplistic) stereotype of General Haig for my liking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one should be going back to any kind of work that involves contact and hundreds of support staff until we have testing.  The leagues have the money to commission tests and as long as it doesn’t take them from key workers this is the minimum to ensure safety.  The premier league and EFL needs to act responsibly for a change and not simply chase the money, just like the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, handworth52 said:

I think people will soon change there thinking when all the gov handouts run out and the country is bankrupt ,with this mass fear factor in a lot of people masses of business will go to the wall ,look at America how many jobs have already been lost , that's coming here very soon by the summer when these payments from government start to dry up ,rent needs to be paid,bills need to be paid and because of a huge panic a lot of people just wont go into these businesses ,a lot only just get by anyways before all this started. some people just cant see what the future is going to be with this mass panic . I take care myself but my life hasn't stopped I go to work ,go to bq go out for walks,bike rides whatever I can do really , while some just refuse to go through there front door who are healthy . the panic of  this is going to do unrepairable damage . im all for safety and been careful and common sense but there is a limit to all this , nobody knows who long this will last we cant all hide forever. how fit healthy footballers can possibly be at risk I don't know, personally id scrap it because football isn't football without paying public there ,this is purely a money reason. I would give all footballers a choice if they aint happy about playing then fine ,suspend there wages until they want to play again that why there not fleecing football for doing nothing. 

 

 

Suspend their wages

 

Good idea

 

See what happens...

 

You're all for health & safety and common sense?

 

Where's the common sense in rushing recklessly back to play high level sport which places extreme stress on the body when it is not known how those players will react with any post-viral syndrome?

 

The effects on the heart and lungs - there is research coming out that both systems may be adversely affected

 

We do not know enough - which is why the govt are putting it on the PL and the PL are putting it on the clubs - so they can wash their hands of any adverse event and point the finger of blame elsewhere

 

It's why i say there should be a position statement from the PL saying they will take resonsibility for any adverse events - because they are acting recklessly byt trying to rush the game back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scram said:

The effects on the heart and lungs - there is research coming out that both systems may be adversely affected

 

I've seen a few examples of this in the media. Some people are significantly affected even weeks after the virus had supposedly been overcome. One bloke I recall could feel well at one moment and then quickly descend into another period of being quite ill for a while.

 

I know he's no top level athlete, but watching the Prime Minister's first Governmental press briefing since his recovery, you didn't need to be a doctor to note his shallow and laboured breathing into the microphone almost a full month after he first reported symptoms. Clearly this is not just a bad dose of the flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJMortimer said:

 

You keep treating this as if we only have to be concerned about footballers. To what extent are you going to test all of them to ensure they don't have underlying health conditions? What of the recent research that extended periods of exercise might make you more prone to serious effects from the virus?

 

Imperial College London, who are playing a leading role advising SAGE, estimated that if half of the world were ultimately to be infected at some stage, it would result in half a million deaths worldwide amongst the under 30s, including around 4,500 in this country. Some studies in China and the United States are also suggesting that the effects may be worse in very young children than was first thought, with over 10% of them suffering "severe and critical" illness following infection. According to the CDC, of the first 2,500 Americans to be hospitalised, a fifth of them were between the ages of 20 and 44, with that age group accounting for 12% of those submitted to intensive care. Obviously, research is still in it's early stages in many arenas and the picture will keep changing, but hoping for the best on the back of selective statistics doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.

 

Two estimates I've seen now are that 300 people would be required to stage even one top flight professional match. In the Premier League there are still 92 of them left to play this season. So that would be over 27,000 potential exposures just in the first instance. Are you going to ensure they all come into the 20-40 age bracket? What are you going to do to ensure they do not pass it on to those more vulnerable afterwards? Keeping them from elder relatives might be straightforward enough, but it is the indirect transmission that is the hidden danger. How many does that initial 27,000 become? And all that assumes that not a single supporter shows up, which has already proven to be wishful thinking in at least two countries.

 

Then there's the Championship, Leagues One and Two, the FA Cup and the EFL Play-Offs. It's difficult to imagine all those involved in other major events sitting quietly at home watching the football with a cold one. It's clear that we cannot continue like this indefinitely for many different reasons but that doesn't excuse a glib shrug of the shoulders to the consequences, especially for something of comparatively modest importance to the overall bigger picture of society returning to normal. All a bit like the (probably simplistic) stereotype of General Haig for my liking.

I don't think many people  - beyond Toby Young and his crew -are glibly shrugging shoulders.

 

As you say we have to work out a way to get everything going again. I don't necessarily buy into the figures estimating how many lives recent Tory austerity has caused but likewise I don't know how many deaths the austerity of the 1930s caused  - I'm fairly sure though the latter numbers will be huge.  The world can't stop for a couple of years without huge ructions that could dwarf the effect of the virus.  And football is a business just like many other non-essential businesses across the country that will want to restart. 

 

I don't know how many people are working at the John Lewis warehouse and in the ensuing delivery chain to ensure I can order a cushion, but I know there are huge inconsistencies in how lockdown is being enforced, who can work, who can't etc.  I don't need a cushion. I don't need football.  The infrastructure that ensures I can get my cushion, curtains, pizzas etc will be bigger nationwide that that required to stage football.  

 

Two wrongs, of course, don't make a right. I'm not saying football should be played. Ultimately it's down to the Government to decide, based on science, the state of the NHS and the state of the economy, what's acceptable and for all industries to fit into that framework. I can't see the games being played - I think the German Government will give us a nudge in that direction by deciding the Bundesliga's plans will have to be cancelled. But I don't think people investigating how it might restart should be regarded as moral pariahs. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kobayashi said:

Professional football is not just a game it’s an economic activity and has been for the best part of 150 years and as such is as valid an economic activity as any other commercial enterprise. 

There are plenty more companies on a local and national level that contribute more and are far more important to the overall economy than football.

Take us for example, so we play our games behind closed doors or at a neutral venue, just how much does that contribute to the local or national economy, include the Blades as well, no fans watching how is this a benefit to jobs and commerce?

Only benefit seems to be to the PL EFL SKY. Ok might give a little lift on morale but if it's the economy that matters then a game is way down the list. Plenty of activities attract more revenue than football, retail etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scram said:

 

 

Suspend their wages

 

Good idea

 

See what happens...

 

You're all for health & safety and common sense?

 

Where's the common sense in rushing recklessly back to play high level sport which places extreme stress on the body when it is not known how those players will react with any post-viral syndrome?

 

The effects on the heart and lungs - there is research coming out that both systems may be adversely affected

 

We do not know enough - which is why the govt are putting it on the PL and the PL are putting it on the clubs - so they can wash their hands of any adverse event and point the finger of blame elsewhere

 

It's why i say there should be a position statement from the PL saying they will take resonsibility for any adverse events - because they are acting recklessly byt trying to rush the game back

yes there may need to be more conclusive evidence regards to any possible effect this would have on healthy athletes, all im looking at is hard facts . there has been just over 100 deaths for the under 40s and nearly all those have underlaying health conditions ,what that means by health condition im not sure ,who knows what might happen with this virus whether it mutates or has other effects what aint yet fully known. im just not bothered about football at the min as unless its watched by spectators then to me its not football. but my thinking is people cant hide behind there doors for too much longer ,its just a matter of keeping the numbers down ,protecting those what need protecting and people getting back to work unless you want to see part 2 of this pandemic which is 10 million out of work ,the country totally bankrupt (which it pretty much is even if it stopped tomorrow) everything upto now has been supported by a very generous chancellor ,but its totally unsustainable , I can see a total breakdown of society if we aint careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I've seen a few examples of this in the media. Some people are significantly affected even weeks after the virus had supposedly been overcome. One bloke I recall could feel well at one moment and then quickly descend into another period of being quite ill for a while.

 

I know he's no top level athlete, but watching the Prime Minister's first Governmental press briefing since his recovery, you didn't need to be a doctor to note his shallow and laboured breathing into the microphone almost a full month after he first reported symptoms. Clearly this is not just a bad dose of the flu.

might also to be that he his very over weight and needs exercise ,I didn't notice too much different with him than before apart from his hair seriously needs a trim lol 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, handworth52 said:

yes there may need to be more conclusive evidence regards to any possible effect this would have on healthy athletes, all im looking at is hard facts . t

 

But there aren't any hard facts - just examples from a totally different population to the environment of a premier league player at his physical limit in a match

 

I'm all for football starting again - i'm all for pubs opening and fans going to games - love it

 

But this is being rushed and i am extremely uneasy about the "known unknowns" which may occur

 

We know already the disease disproportionately kills those of sub-Saharan African descent - we also know that same population is considerably over represented in premier league (and all professional football) compared to the general population

 

We know there is a link to adverse cardiac and respiratory issues

 

Thats just one example - what about post-viral syndrome?

 

Maybe there are other issues down the pipeline?

 

So why would anybody want to rush back before much more is known about likely outcomes?

 

And again, sorry to keep repeating - but it is why NOBODY wants to stick their head above the parapet and say they will take responsibility for adverse events

 

The PL are using the govt and their guidelines to basically hang individual club Dr's out to dry in the unforgiveable event should a tragedy occur

 

The timeline is totally unrealistic given the risk profile

 

I full understand why the PL want the season finished by June 30th - but it has to be done safely and with accountability

 

Both of those have run for the hills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I think we're talking about the difference between potential and actual infection. If you have 13,800 people involved who all test negative in the first week (as questionably reliable as that might be), then you would have the same number who could be positive the following week, regardless of who they were. So in those terms, it is a cumulative total even if it was the same individuals every game.

 

That would only change if some of them test positive. Obviously they would have to be replaced in the short term and thus you'd still have 13,800 involved each week of fixtures. After recovery, it's possible these individuals could return with immunity, but from what I've read and heard, even that cannot be taken for granted. It's assumed that previous carriers have some degree of protection based on other viruses and the body's defences, but it is not known how much, or how long it might last. The research is still in it's infancy regarding that. 

 

And as I said earlier, the numbers these people would come into contact with, directly or indirectly could escalate quickly before anyone realised what was going on. It seems to me that the odds of no one being tested positive in the first couple of weeks are negligible and an already chaotic situation would become even more shambolic. That aspect alone makes the whole idea fanciful.

 

In the top two divisions there are 9-10 games left, in the lower two it's 10-13. But financially it's difficult to imagine how Leagues One and Two could operate behind closed doors, especially with all the extra measures that would be necessary, without making large losses that jeopardised the existence of numerous clubs. However, I don't imagine the Premier League or FA have given any of those much thought.

 

It's looking more likely that anyone who has been infected already, will have some kind of immunity to the virus, although I think I am right in saying there are different strains of Covid-19, so I don't know if a previously infected person would be immune to all strains. A lot of the scientific and medical community who deal with this kind of thing strongly believe that there should be immunity based on other viruses, but as you said, this cannot be taken for granted, until absolutely proven. South Korea have stuck their necks out though and said that is the case. Let's hope they are correct. Until then, we follow the Government guidelines.

 

Football returning is basically a battle between money and peoples lives, and in that battle the winning outcome should be obvious. You mentioned about League One and Two teams operating behind closed doors, but if you think about it they already are as they have currently lost their match day income, with little or no chance of fans returning for the remaining games of this season, should it be completed. Yet they will still have to pay their players. If the leaked audio from Bristol Rovers is to be believed - and it certainly sounds genuine - the EFL are saying that there will be no fans in stadiums until Jan 2021, unless a cure is found. That could push many clubs to the wall. I bet the PL are rubbing their hands at this thought, as it would mean more revenue in the long term for the mega-rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kobayashi said:

That’s not the requirement. If you cannot reasonably do your job from home then you can travel to work.

i would imagine they all have home gyms and houses big enough to run in the grounds, cant imagine many live in three bed semis anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/05/2020 at 17:04, DJMortimer said:

 

Direct contact is for the most part straightforward to avoid. It's the indirect part that is the biggest problem. 

Touching tails in the showers? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kobayashi said:

There would be but the statistics in every country say that they wouldn’t. So far the  probability of an Italian under 30 dyeing fro Corona Italy through the worst outbreak in the world are 1 in 2 million and more likely those  unfortunate 10 that have died had some underlying condition. The risks of any number of other illnesses or accidents are far greater but somehow people live from day-to-day. 
 

Fit and healthy 25 year olds are not dyeing of this disease.

Not all players are 25.

It's not just the players lives, they also have to consider their wives, parents and friends.

In the big scheme of things football is of vanishingly small importance compared to the lives of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/05/2020 at 13:10, handworth52 said:

there is 100-1000 times more chance of catching the virus at a supermarket than playing football in the fresh air. yes the footballer wont want to risk giving it to and elderly relation but this virus don't touch healthy children and young adults , there are loads of nasty evil illnesses what effect younger people but this pretty much isn't 1 of them. people need to stop been petrified only 50 of a 1000 don't have an underlaying health issue what have sadly passed away and most of the 50 are over 60years old. 

“60% of the time, it works every time”. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m late to this thread and don’t know if it’s been mentioned previously but I feel that the biggest elephant in the room is the glorious season that Liverpool is having. I don’t subscribe to any sentiment that the PL (let’s face it, the PL is driving the agenda for all elite sport atm) will try to complete the season because it’s Liverpool and they are the “Golden Boys”;  I do however, believe that there is a reluctance to immediately end this season because it would be extremely harsh on Liverpool given the extent of their lead and their imminence of capturing the title. I feel that it would be exactly the same if this occurred during the season when Leicester were running away with the league. If it’s a season where Man City and say, Chelsea are neck and neck then the season ends now and there’s not much fuss in terms of their being no title awarded. 
 

Whenever you talk to someone about ending current football competitions with immediate effect, people tend to bring up how harsh it would be on Liverpool FC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...