|
Post by jdl on Jul 3, 2020 23:31:17 GMT
What, a bit like away fans' behaviour determined whether or not we'd have segregation at the Gallagher? Oh dear. Now that international travel is back on, it's not just the British public you need to worry about. It's frustrating, because as per my post about 1 case a day in Oxon., COVID's practically gone from large swathes of the country. Couple of months of clamping down on "hotspots" may or may not do the trick. Thing #6,927 that I just don't get: the NHS can't get through to 20 or 25% people who've had a test. So 1 in 4 people think "I've had a test for this deadly pandemic - better switch off my phone and ignore my emails for a month"? (JDL will blame this on Boris, because of something he read in his comic...) Kinda back on topic, restricting crowds to 1,000 at the Gallagher will be easy, as [taking this board as representative] about 50% of our fans are so paranoid they'll still be self-isolating in 2030. On the figure's published this week from the ONS - allegedly independent of the Govt - approximately 1 in 2200 of the general population currently has the virus.
Assuming 25% of those know they have it and act responsibly that's then 1 in 2933 of the people out on the streets potentially having the virus.
Even being optimistic about the potential home crowds at the Gallagher, by assuming 2000, statistically its only slightly more likely than not that one person attending will have the virus.
Evidence appears to suggest - but not conclusively - that 'most' who test positive (and the ONS figures are based on actual tests of all their selected population sample) do not show symptoms. Also those who do not show symptoms are, again believed to be, significantly less contagious than those with symptoms.
Based on those figures and assumptions (and yes, I can accept real life can vary) the chances of being near someone, that's 'significantly contagious' at a home match is quite remote. And that's without any mitigating actions being taken.
For away games the average attendance last season was around 950 and the chances are halved again.
Before anyone leaps up and down I'm not intending to provide 'evidence' of anything but trying to put some perspective on the risks.
Personally, based on my own circumstances, that level of risk would not deter me attending matches. But all our circumstances are different and I'd respect different conclusions.
What's your source for this? I've seen/read/heard nothing to support this - in fact just the opposite, as, because they don't display symptons, no one is aware of the danger, and so they effectively become more infectious.
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Jul 4, 2020 3:54:26 GMT
Within delirium moments of logical rational thought still do still exist.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Jul 4, 2020 6:57:27 GMT
It's almost like you two don't want it to end. Do you both really need to put a downer on everything anyone posts that has the slightest hint of positivity?
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Jul 4, 2020 7:38:57 GMT
No - I respect this honey badger virus - It's vicious.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Jul 4, 2020 7:56:45 GMT
Some interesting pieces on BBC news today. One strongly hints at why we got it so bad, probably through failure to limit the spread following people coming back from Italy and Spain after the February half term - lockdown needed to be earlier. Two on how come Japan and SE Asia countries like Korea and Vietnam have done far better than us - anything from cultural difference to mask wearing seen as normal. Three on situations for super spreading: BBC News - Coronavirus: What makes a gathering a ‘superspreader’ event? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53273382 This last one focuses on choirs, bars and parties as being some of the worst events you can attend. Standing in a closely packed Kop End, singing and shouting loudly for your team, or at the ref, and being around shared food and drink are all big spreaders. Key reasons why pubs, clubs, music events and close knit gatherings are not a good idea without sensible behaviour. Likewise certain parts of football grounds on match days. A long way to go still, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Stonethecrow on Jul 4, 2020 7:58:19 GMT
Sorry daveu and this comment is not intended to be disrespectful, but I have not personally spoken to a single clinician, who does not believe there will be another wave, let alone a series of local spikes.
Depends who you choose to believe I suppose, our brilliant NHS doctors or Boris and his muppets.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Jul 4, 2020 8:54:57 GMT
On the figure's published this week from the ONS - allegedly independent of the Govt - approximately 1 in 2200 of the general population currently has the virus.
Assuming 25% of those know they have it and act responsibly that's then 1 in 2933 of the people out on the streets potentially having the virus.
Even being optimistic about the potential home crowds at the Gallagher, by assuming 2000, statistically its only slightly more likely than not that one person attending will have the virus.
Evidence appears to suggest - but not conclusively - that 'most' who test positive (and the ONS figures are based on actual tests of all their selected population sample) do not show symptoms. Also those who do not show symptoms are, again believed to be, significantly less contagious than those with symptoms.
Based on those figures and assumptions (and yes, I can accept real life can vary) the chances of being near someone, that's 'significantly contagious' at a home match is quite remote. And that's without any mitigating actions being taken.
For away games the average attendance last season was around 950 and the chances are halved again.
Before anyone leaps up and down I'm not intending to provide 'evidence' of anything but trying to put some perspective on the risks.
Personally, based on my own circumstances, that level of risk would not deter me attending matches. But all our circumstances are different and I'd respect different conclusions.
What's your source for this? I've seen/read/heard nothing to support this - in fact just the opposite, as, because they don't display symptons, no one is aware of the danger, and so they effectively become more infectious. I think this may be the source of his comment www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-the-who-meant-to-say-about-asymptomatic-people-spreading-the-coronavirus/amp
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Jul 4, 2020 9:02:01 GMT
Anyway...that Dan Sweeney was some player....
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Jul 4, 2020 10:35:33 GMT
On the figure's published this week from the ONS - allegedly independent of the Govt - approximately 1 in 2200 of the general population currently has the virus.
Assuming 25% of those know they have it and act responsibly that's then 1 in 2933 of the people out on the streets potentially having the virus.
Even being optimistic about the potential home crowds at the Gallagher, by assuming 2000, statistically its only slightly more likely than not that one person attending will have the virus.
Evidence appears to suggest - but not conclusively - that 'most' who test positive (and the ONS figures are based on actual tests of all their selected population sample) do not show symptoms. Also those who do not show symptoms are, again believed to be, significantly less contagious than those with symptoms.
Based on those figures and assumptions (and yes, I can accept real life can vary) the chances of being near someone, that's 'significantly contagious' at a home match is quite remote. And that's without any mitigating actions being taken.
For away games the average attendance last season was around 950 and the chances are halved again.
Before anyone leaps up and down I'm not intending to provide 'evidence' of anything but trying to put some perspective on the risks.
Personally, based on my own circumstances, that level of risk would not deter me attending matches. But all our circumstances are different and I'd respect different conclusions.
What's your source for this? I've seen/read/heard nothing to support this - in fact just the opposite, as, because they don't display symptons, no one is aware of the danger, and so they effectively become more infectious. Source was the BBC's News website, aproximately 10 days ago, reporting a study from the far East. Think it might have been China or Japan. Before that there had been reports on how those without symptoms would continue to spread the virus which would make combatting the spread very difficult. The usual tabloids even predicted we were doomed. I would suggest that the current, continuing, decline in the spread in the UK and elsewhere, but not universally, would indicate that those earlier reports and predictions haven't happened which 'could' support the far East study.
|
|
|
Post by soulstone on Jul 4, 2020 10:52:35 GMT
Covid-19 will eventually die out but mental health issues brought on by it will sadly continue for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Jul 4, 2020 11:35:02 GMT
There had been reports on how those without symptoms would continue to spread the virus which would make combatting the spread very difficult. The usual tabloids even predicted we were doomed. Doom sells more newspapers than positivity. Anyone know what the popular press is saying? I discovered from John Bunyard's Kent Pride site that Lord Harmsworth of Northcliffe opened up the national press market by introducing the ‘Daily Mail’ for the middle classes and the ‘Daily Mirror’ for women (1896 and 1903 respectively). I wonder if they were any more readable then!
|
|
|
Post by sword65 on Jul 4, 2020 11:42:00 GMT
There had been reports on how those without symptoms would continue to spread the virus which would make combatting the spread very difficult. The usual tabloids even predicted we were doomed. Doom sells more newspapers than positivity. Anyone know what the popular press is saying? I discovered from John Bunyard's Kent Pride site that Lord Harmsworth of Northcliffe opened up the national press market by introducing the ‘Daily Mail’ for the middle classes and the ‘Daily Mirror’ for women (1896 and 1903 respectively). I wonder if they were any more readable then! Apart from the Non league Paper I havent bought a paper in over 5 years and rarely read one these days. If I want to read absolute rubbish I would buy a Martina Cole novel.
|
|
|
Post by jdh80 on Jul 4, 2020 12:29:17 GMT
Anyway...that Dan Sweeney was some player.... Keep trying Steve you might get some luck soon 😂😂
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Jul 4, 2020 15:30:22 GMT
He was a good player - but don't expect our muppets to see talent.
|
|
|
Post by yorkshirestone on Jul 9, 2020 9:38:00 GMT
Can we just clarify something here? If we are waiting for CORONAVIRUS or CORONAVIRUSES to be eradicated football will never exist again and we will be in eternal lockdown as coronavirus and coronaviruses are in the common cold and always have been. Lets use the correct term. Covid 19 is the specific and unique coronavirus that we are in abject fear and terror of and is nasty and we need to avoid. If we are trying to avoid coronaviruses in general that's ridiculous because we will never stop getting colds. Its not a small point because coronavirus and coronaviruses are very common, quite normal and a nuisance but harmless, so we must not build fear and paranoia about them - we have been living with them all of our lives. Covid 19 is serious, but the NHS test only says that you are positive for Coronavirus, not Covid 19, so it can actually only tell you if you have a cold. Does this mean that the figures we are fed daily of "those infected with coronavirus" and "those who have died of coronavirus" actually refer to those who died from other causes whilst having a cold? Makes you wonder how widespread actual, real, genuine Covid 19 actually is, if we are confusing the two so badly! I was right with you there - right up to the last two lines. Rest assured that the tests are for COVID-19 not coronavirus. The media may be lazy and use the terms interchangeably, but the scientists and healthcare workers involved in the testing and identification of pathogens are well up to speed and report accordingly. I note also that you suggest that hospitals are paid more by the Government for having (presumably you mean detecting) more Covid-19 cases. This is absolutely untrue and I have to wonder whether you are just a victim of fake news or you are pursuing an agenda.
|
|