Jump to content

Six premier league footballers test positive for Covid 19


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mcowl said:

Really interesting how polarized views are on this.

I seem to be in a minority as someone who is at risk (no spleen), and 60 next month, but prefer to get on with my life as I choose.

 

At the other end are fit people who have been frightened to death by the media and refuse to leave the house.

sadly we are now told we are no longer capable of each choosing our own destiny, but have let the government tell us how to live.

 

compare this to smokers.

The 2020s will see far more people die of smoking than this virus, yet nobody bats an eyelid about that.

Everyone would agree that they are adults free to make their own choice in life.

Whatever happened to that philosophy?

 

The government could have saved more lives by banning smoking instead. 

 

 

And in the middle are the vast majority of people who are going out when they have to.

I've had it. If you get what I got in your condition god help you.

It's your choice to roll the dice with your own health. Not others though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nero said:

It's your choice to roll the dice with your own health. Not others though.


Whilst true you also have to point out that it's a very very infectious disease so the actions of one person can result in the infection of many

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mcguigan
26 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Well yes, and despite the social distancing measures, they are probably responsible for a significant percentage of the transmissions. But some would argue that they supply a service somewhat more vital than playing football.

 

But what are the 'underlying health issues' so glibly talked about by the way? Just one example - Dr John Dickinson, head of the exercise respiratory clinic at the University of Kent, has conducted the most up-to-date research into professional footballers and levels of asthma and he estimates that possibly 25-30% of players may be suffering some degree of it. But he was complaining about the lack of research into that even before Coronavirus. To be fair, there is no evidence that asthmatics are more susceptible to the infection, but respiratory patients are much more likely to suffer complications from it. But if you were one of them, would you be so quick to shrug your shoulders and take the leap of faith; because that's what it would be?

 

Again, I'm not predicting disaster, because I'm not qualified to do so and the implications are widely unknown about so much of this whole episode. Maybe the safety measures turn out to be adequate, although Troy Deeney's account does not inspire confidence in that. But it seems to me that too many are playing fast and loose with the possibilities as if this is no more consequential than a bad cold or the likelihood of being hit by a meteorite.

 

 

Who’s glibly talking about underlying health issues?

 

So your reference Dr John Dickinson, he estimates that possibly 25-30% may be suffering some degree of it.

 

Estimates, possibly, that maybe. 
 

Patronising, much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mcguigan said:

Who’s glibly talking about underlying health issues?

 

So your reference Dr John Dickinson, he estimates that possibly 25-30% may be suffering some degree of it.

 

Estimates, possibly, that maybe. 
 

Patronising, much.

 

 

So typical of the modern age.

 

Your point was challenged in a pertinent, informed way and you've chosen to address those issues by squealing like a little girl.

 

Your choice.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 


Anyone using the term snowflake in 2020 needs to check themselves 

It's an outdated term already ffs

 

lol

 

worra snowflake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone what watched the german games behind closed doors know that football without supporters is nothing ,I wont be watching any more . they need to work a way to let supporters in the future , it is possible and its feasible . a similar system to what they currently use in airports 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mcguigan said:

Sorry, I don’t understand your point.

 

Are you saying players could still have the virus at the time of testing and it still showed negative?

Yes that is a possibility, there have been quite a few false positive and false negative tests, and someone can be negative today, go home mix with someone who is positive and develop it

 

two days before next test another day to get the results, so a chance to infect others for three days

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mcguigan said:

More likely they weren’t even aware they had it. Otherwise they’d have been following the government guidelines and self isolating.

 

I’m sure any PL club who has staff in the high risk group will have told them to stay away from training and match days anyway.

 

You can look for angles all day long but 6 positive tests from748 or 0.008% means football will go on.

 

So that could mean a manager has to stay away from training and a match, do you think that will happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mcowl said:

Really interesting how polarized views are on this.

I seem to be in a minority as someone who is at risk (no spleen), and 60 next month, but prefer to get on with my life as I choose.

 

At the other end are fit people who have been frightened to death by the media and refuse to leave the house.

sadly we are now told we are no longer capable of each choosing our own destiny, but have let the government tell us how to live.

 

compare this to smokers.

The 2020s will see far more people die of smoking than this virus, yet nobody bats an eyelid about that.

Everyone would agree that they are adults free to make their own choice in life.

Whatever happened to that philosophy?

 

The government could have saved more lives by banning smoking instead. 

 

 

couldn't  agree more ,I mentioned the same point regards deaths in smokers , and a good amount of them maybe would have had maybe 10 more years in life if they were banned from smoking , sadly the old/frail who this is mostly effecting already lead an awful existence ,ive worked with the older generation over the years and often they say to me in the past that they would sooner end in a box than end up in a care home and mostly just waiting for there end ,its heart breaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mcguigan said:

More likely they weren’t even aware they had it. Otherwise they’d have been following the government guidelines and self isolating.

 

I’m sure any PL club who has staff in the high risk group will have told them to stay away from training and match days anyway.

 

You can look for angles all day long but 6 positive tests from748 or 0.008% means football will go on.

 

It's actually 0.080213904 :ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mcowl said:

compare this to smokers.

The 2020s will see far more people die of smoking than this virus, yet nobody bats an eyelid about that.

Everyone would agree that they are adults free to make their own choice in life.

Whatever happened to that philosophy?

 

The government could have saved more lives by banning smoking instead. 

 

 

 

You make some interesting points, but there are some very important differences.

 

1) Just by walking around, a smoker is not widely jeopardising people's lives in the short term, even if he blows smoke right in their face.

2) He has made his own choices about whether he wants to take those risks or not, even choosing to pay for them.

3) Although it is a large burden on the NHS, smoking does not threaten to engulf it's resources for a long period.

4) There is no tax on Coronavirus... yet. :ph34r:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

I don't agree with this thought process.

Going to work in any business with any amount of people in any industry is a risk.

Just because one seems safer than the other is no reason to advocate for it happening


Whether you like it or not, that’s what’s currently happening. One set of people been told to work and one set having a stand off. 
 

So you’re advocating a standoff and a substantial financial crisis despite certain assurances and safety procedures 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wednesday_Jack said:


Whether you like it or not, that’s what’s currently happening. One set of people been told to work and one set having a stand off. 
 

So you’re advocating a standoff and a substantial financial crisis despite certain assurances and safety procedures 


You're bang on it is. Some people are working and have been forced to work, and others are sat furloughed or waiting things out.

It's a mess

I don't have the answers I just have the humanitarian opinion that absolutely everyone should be safe and nobody should be put at risk of dying.

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

Do you mean the 80s and 90s when the top teams were clamouring to set up the Premier League? 

 

There was no money to be made with lucrative overseas TV contracts so I take your point - but to pretend that means football wasn't driven by money is a bit daft. Look at some of our successful players in the 80s for example. Bannister, Varadi, Chapman, Sterland, Megson all left and got more lucrative deals elsewhere. Chapman's was a bit of a George Hirst before George Hirst situation. 

 

Collectively I don't think the current mob are any worse or any better. 

 

Actually, I forgot the PL started in '92, so forget that decade.  Anyway, I was only referring to the broadcasting rights, and I wasn't suggesting for one second it wasn't driven by money. It always has been driven by money, everyone knows that. But back then there wasn't the kind of money involved, and therefore whilst the players were still well paid, it's nothing like today. Lee Chapman lived in High Green and went drinking in the Acorn on Burncross Road which is a far cry from Whirlow and Dore.

 

The question was, given the huge difference in money involved back then, would the governing bodies have wanted to finish the season, or they have seen sense and cancelled it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:

 

You make some interesting points, but there are some very important differences.

 

1) Just by walking around, a smoker is not widely jeopardising people's lives in the short term, even if he blows smoke right in their face.

2) He has made his own choices about whether he wants to take those risks or not, even choosing to pay for them.

3) Although it is a large burden on the NHS, smoking does not threaten to engulf it's resources for a long period.

4) There is no tax on Coronavirus... yet. :ph34r:

 

I

Point 2 hits the nail on the head. They have made their own choice.

 

We should all be able to make our own choice whether that's to stay in, go out, see our children and grandchildren, or not see them.

 

You could have a look at Roy Castles comments on whether passive smoking is harmful or not.

 

Point 4 is also spot on. Smokers pay a huge amount of tax and on the whole they don't draw a pension for very long

 

 

Link to comment
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...