Six premier league footballers test positive for Covid 19

[@owlstalk]

Just now, mcowl said:

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.

Yeah

That's right

The general public should be trusted to do as they please during a global pandemic with a deadly virus

 

*bangs head on desk*

[Wednesday_Jack]

11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Why would anyone WANT to call someone a snowflake though?

 

 

I could think of other words but I’m sure I would get even more done...like a 9 year old in the school play ground.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Wednesday_Jack said:

I could think of other words but I’m sure I would get even more done...like a 9 year old in the school play ground.

You're free to say whatever you like mate so long as it's not sweary or abusive

 

I'm only teasing

[Hookowl]

3 minutes ago, Wednesday_Jack said:

I could think of other words but I’m sure I would get even more done...like a 9 year old in the school play ground.

 

Whatever words you use..........................................you won't get negged 

[Dick_Turpin]

12 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

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?

 

I just listened to the CEO - I think - of Portsmouth on 5 Live. He was very eloquent and sensible. Portsmouth want to continue - he explained why. The financial implications of not playing football are pretty huge - especially if this crisis rumbles on - and the directors have a fiduciary duty to look after the interests of the club. That's how limited companies work. He was very straightforward about this and about other teams not wanting to continue and not dismissive of them at all. Basically the bigger clubs - those more aligned with the Championship - can afford to play on the smaller ones can't. They are trying to find a solution that fits both.  

 

Ultimately the government have told us all to work from home and if you can't then try and go back to work - except in a number of sectors. For whatever reason they think sport should be encouraged to restart and football - and other sports - are putting as many measures in place as they can to reduce risks. In that they are no different from Eastenders planning on going back to filming and garden centres opening. The PHE work guidelines don't say you have to maintain social distancing  - they talk about wherever possible. They don't even preclude face to face working. Presumably football believes it can operate within those guidelines and - according to the Portsmouth guy - most players want to go back to work. Those who don't - one player's wife is pregnant for example - won't be forced to. 

 

Football clubs exist to play football. It's OK for us to sit here and say take a year out until a vaccine is found but directors of companies - not just football clubs - who can see a way to go back to work within government guidelines have to explore those possibilities at the very least.

 

I don't normally but on this issue I have a huge sympathy for the clubs and the football authorities. I think they should call the season as it is but I fully understand why the clubs. and in the top two divisions it seems to be the vast majority of clubs, want to play on. 

[the_who]

12 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yeah

That's right

The general public should be trusted to do as they please during a global pandemic with a deadly virus

 

*bangs head on desk*

Does that statement make sense? Why would you need to trust someone to do as they please? Surely whatever they did would be as ‘they please’ so trust is not an issue.

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, the_who said:

Does that statement make sense? Why would you need to trust someone to do as they please? Surely whatever they did would be as ‘they please’ so trust is not an issue.

 

I'm not sitting arguing semantics mate

 

 

[Guest ka58]

2 hours ago, Wednesday_Jack said:

It is divisive subject and I’m sure my full view on this would very much upset the snow flakes and the covid police on social media.

 

Members of general public (the working man), in particular construction workers told to work and mix on sites with people they’ve never met and there’s no testing available but they are cracking on the best they can. Now on to footballers....mixing with the same 20 people who they know and who should have been isolating as per the guidelines but refusing to go back to work despite it probably been safer than your average work place. I would also imagine that financially they are able to fund regular testing like the Germans to ensure further safety. 

I agree to a point but contact sport and football in particular is a bit different - youve for physically contact people on and off for long periods-you gonna go and head the ball and

have faces and spit and sweat contacting each other.

 

They wouldn’t be sending people back to do a Normal. job where every few minutes you had to grapple with someone in the factory and put your face in contact with someone elses every few minutes. 

[@owlstalk]

 

 

I wonder if spitting will be banned in football from now on? 

(on the floor I mean - not at each other which is already banned)

[Guest ka58]

Footballers will also have families they’ll be worried about - Troy deeney for example has a young son who has had breathing problems.

 

troy deeney as a person is massively low risk for getting seriously ill with the virus but his son might not be. 

[the_who]

8 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

I'm not sitting arguing semantics mate

 

 

The bangs head on desk statement makes a lot of sense though. You do that a lot?

[Bluesteel]

On Troy Deeney I get where he’s coming from but the idea is they supposedly control who plays and who doesn’t and who is there and who isn’t. If everyone is negative what is the risk?

 

Going for a haircut amongst general population is completely different which is why we’re not doing it

[Guest ka58]

1 minute ago, Bluesteel said:

On Troy Deeney I get where he’s coming from but the idea is they supposedly control who plays and who doesn’t and who is there and who isn’t. If everyone is negative what is the risk?

 

Going for a haircut amongst general population is completely different which is why we’re not doing it

exactly - a 20 year old who doesn’t even have any symptoms goes for a haircut and inadvertently transmits it to the next customer who is a 70 year old man with a heart condition who dies.

 

 

[Hookowl]

1 minute ago, Bluesteel said:

On Troy Deeney I get where he’s coming from but the idea is they supposedly control who plays and who doesn’t and who is there and who isn’t. If everyone is negative what is the risk?

 

Going for a haircut amongst general population is completely different which is why we’re not doing it

The risk would be that it takes 48 hours to get the results and anyone could get infected after testing but prior to the next test.

The only way to guarantee this not happening would be everyone of the players, managers, coaches, officials and any others involved to be quarantined until all their games had been played.

I can't see that happening.

[ChapSmurf]

5 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

I just listened to the CEO - I think - of Portsmouth on 5 Live. He was very eloquent and sensible. Portsmouth want to continue - he explained why. The financial implications of not playing football are pretty huge - especially if this crisis rumbles on - and the directors have a fiduciary duty to look after the interests of the club. That's how limited companies work. He was very straightforward about this and about other teams not wanting to continue and not dismissive of them at all. Basically the bigger clubs - those more aligned with the Championship - can afford to play on the smaller ones can't. They are trying to find a solution that fits both.  

 

Ultimately the government have told us all to work from home and if you can't then try and go back to work - except in a number of sectors. For whatever reason they think sport should be encouraged to restart and football - and other sports - are putting as many measures in place as they can to reduce risks. In that they are no different from Eastenders planning on going back to filming and garden centres opening. The PHE work guidelines don't say you have to maintain social distancing  - they talk about wherever possible. They don't even preclude face to face working. Presumably football believes it can operate within those guidelines and - according to the Portsmouth guy - most players want to go back to work. Those who don't - one player's wife is pregnant for example - won't be forced to. 

 

Football clubs exist to play football. It's OK for us to sit here and say take a year out until a vaccine is found but directors of companies - not just football clubs - who can see a way to go back to work within government guidelines have to explore those possibilities at the very least.

 

I don't normally but on this issue I have a huge sympathy for the clubs and the football authorities. I think they should call the season as it is but I fully understand why the clubs. and in the top two divisions it seems to be the vast majority of clubs, want to play on. 

 

The problem with football, and it's one we all know and understand, is that due to the vast sums of money paid to the PL teams for broadcasting rights, players wages across all leagues have risen exponentially. I am a Director of a Limited company, so I fully understand how they work. If I was to lose a large percentage of the company income, it would undoubtably affect the company as a whole so in that respect I have sympathy with the clubs who absolutely rely upon their match day income. However at some point the industry as a whole has to say enough is enough with regards to its expenditure on player wages and especially on agents fees. Collectively they all have to make a stand and until they do, collectively they are all to blame. But that will never happen, as there will always be one who has the capacity to pay more.

 

John Barnes has said recently that it's okay for clubs to play behind closed doors. Well it might be for the majority of the PL, but it certainly isn't for the 72 EFL clubs. Of course there are mega-rich Chairman in the Championship who could carry on bank-rolling their clubs for some time, ours included. But what about the others like Portsmouth? I have no real feelings for Portsmouth, either way, but I certainly wouldn't want to see them fold and I fear that is what will happen to some clubs as things currently stand.

 

Of course, the football authorities can't be blamed for this pandemic, but I do think it is about time that they started to look at the entire industry and realise that it isn't a financially viable model to carry forward.

[DJMortimer]

4 minutes ago, Bluesteel said:

If everyone is negative what is the risk?

 

There are two types of test. You can choose between reliability or getting the result within minutes instead of days, but can't have both yet.

 

Either way, there's still a risk.

[FroggattOwls]

If I wanted to be really controversial players should take hydroxychloriqune I know everyone thinks it’s a joke because orange man bad.....  but if trump hadn’t mentioned it, it would be taken far more seriously now. India is recommending it nationwide. It’s generally safe.... same root substance as tonic water, known health treatment for generations, 

[@owlstalk]

 

There's a killer virus out there

It's invisible

It's killed thousands and thousands of people

You can't see it

Everyone who died caught it from someone else - every single one of them

 

And yet we still have people trying to argue that wandering about as they please or playing football isn't going to put others at risk

Mindbending stuff 
 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, FroggattOwls said:

If I wanted to be really controversial players should take hydroxychloriqune I know everyone thinks it’s a joke because orange man bad.....  but if trump hadn’t mentioned it, it would be taken far more seriously now. India is recommending it nationwide. It’s generally safe.... same root substance as tonic water, known health treatment for generations, 

 

[Wednesday_Jack]

2 hours ago, DJMortimer said:

 

Yet again; the same myopic perspective that the only issue at hand is how likely it is for physically fit blokes in the 20-40 age range to die from catching the virus. All the studies show this to be a negligible risk and NOBODY is arguing with that so far as I know. But what of the wider potential?

 

According to a couple of sources, around 300 people are required to stage a single top flight game. There are 92 of them left in the Premier League season, so that's 27,000 possible exposures. Each of those people will presumably live with three or four others on average, thus expanding that number to somewhere in the region of six figures. Once you factor in the indirect contact, that grows exponentially to who knows how many? Add the Championship to that, and those figures double at a stroke.

 

With 6 positive tests already, that hardly inspires confidence for keeping this under control, especially given the exponential spreading inherent with a virus that it's carriers can be completely oblivious to.

 

Plenty of professional bodies and individuals, in many countries, do not agree with various measures being taken by Governments at this stage which includes the return of professional sport.

 

Regular testing is all very well, but the instant kits are some way short of reliable and the others take 2-3 days to process, by which time the result is out of date anyway.

 

What about the studies that suggest strenuous exercise, like playing top level football for example, exacerbates the effects of infection?

 

Troy Deeney has already highlighted that the authorities he spoke to were unable to answer what he thought were straightforward questions. So with that in mind, what measures are being taken to ensure that players, coaches, medical staff, equipment handlers, officials, camera crews, stadium facilities, drivers, security etc. who are involved in the games do not have underlying health conditions that increases their risk? Is there even an exhaustive list of what kind of things would need to be investigated?

 

Scientific research so far indicates that those who suffer moderate to severe symptoms but recover could face long term or permanent organ damage, leading to other possible health problems in the future. 

 

Does this mean that the plan is inevitably doomed to failure? Of course not. Perhaps everything goes tremendously well and the whole thing is recorded in history as a minor inconvenience. But I do find it frustrating that some people are so aggressively dismissive of the potential implications; if they've even considered them to begin with.

 

 

Please don’t feel like I am dismissing anything as that simply isn’t the case, it’s a serious situation that deserves serious actions on all fronts. 
 

There is a hell of a lot of information and stats available on the internet, it’s hard to understand what is accurate and what isn’t at times so I have decided not to take to much notice of quite a lot of it to be honest. I honestly think there is a huge amount of scaremongering from various main stream sources so yes this bit is dismissive. 
 

My issue with footballers is the fact that some of them have moaned like spoilt brats at time’s with all this guinea pig and lab rat nonsense (Rose and Rooney prime examples)...why can building contractors, building sites and other places of work for that matter, go to the full hog and invest in testing equipment and other products (which is accurate and safe enough) to allow people to work safely, yet footballers won’t accept this? The only people been treated like guinea pigs are the people who have worked through this and started going to again recently. 
 

Who do these modern day players think they are?? We’ve all got family we need to protect and provide for and we’ve all got ourselves to look after. They just have the luxury of not needing to go to work. 90% of this current crop would happily see their respective clubs (their employers) go bust without even so much of thinking twice about the affects it would have on the rest of clubs staff who rely on jobs, the clubs supply chain and the local community...all to line their own pockets whilst squealing about entitlements and H&S rights etc... so I don’t accept their guinea pig n lab rats stand in the slightest. 
 

Every profession in the country has been open to the furlough scheme...football contracts are set up on PAYE basis so why have they been financially immune to the situation?? They haven’t been to execute their work responsibilities. 
 

As for what Danny Rose said...”f**k the nations moral“...all respect is lost Danny, retire now for me. Sums it up