Up to 4,000 fans to be allowed at Outdoor Sports from 2.12.2020 | Page 6 | Vital Football

Up to 4,000 fans to be allowed at Outdoor Sports from 2.12.2020

HoofGrantBrown said:
Well personally I don't want to kill our older supporters.
But be reckless and irresponsible if you want.
Click to expand...

This kind of misses the point. Similar to all the "young people are unaffected" opinions when the heatmaps they were showing at the Press conferences show that the young are the biggest "carriers" or "transmitters."

So your opinion is that it is fine for younger (or less vulnerable groups) to jolly around as long as the older people are kept away so you (as a collective) can't pass it on to them.

In general the "oldies" are taking a lot more care about things. There is quite a blase attitude (sweeping generalisation) among many of the younger less vulnerable groups who in many cases do not understand that it isn't about how it will affect them directly and much more about the next person along the chain that they pass it on to.

Either way, I shall not be entering a ballot (I'm only 45.) That is my choice. I don't however think a ballot should be opened with limitations on age etc. It would be most likely safer if all the oldies were allowed to attend the game and all the non oldies were banned from a mile perimeter.

And yes above are very sweeping generalisations. There are plenty of sensible young uns and plenty of stupid old uns. Plenty in all age groups that are blase about things but it cannot be denied that the heatmaps show consistently that the younger age groups are the "spreaders." The problem being that if 50 young 'uns get it they are much less likely to die than the 2 oldies they spread it to. So let those 2 oldies go and ban the 50:

skynews-greater-manchester_5144450.jpg


It should also be noted that although the number per 100k is an indicator of spread, the tiers are also assessed on the ability to cope with problems. Therefore a county such as Lincolnshire could have a lower number than somewhere else because it is much more rural and thus the lower number with fewer hospitals in proximity could mean more need for a higher tier than somewhere like an area in Greater London where patients could be taken to another hospital quite close but out of the area of that higher number.
 
Last edited:
GreenNeedle said:
No it doesn't mean you get 1000 false positives. It means you get 1000 taht might not be accurate and they could be positive or negative so in the end are going to level out. they are as likely to be false negatives as they are positives.
Click to expand...

You're quite right to say that, it would only apply if 100k people who don't have it at all are tested. You'd still get 1000 positives even if the virus had been eliminated.

However, just for completeness of the arithmetic, the tests won't level out if you're testing people with no symptoms, with the current accuracy of tests.

If the actual rate of infection is 400/100k (ie 1 in 250 people actually have it) then 4 of the positives will falsely show negative. But 996 negatives will still falsely show positive. The net is 992 (not 1000)

If the accuracy of the test is 99.9% then you may have 1 false negative. But in 100,000 tests you'd still get 100 false positives.

The results are completely different of course if people suspected of having it are the ones being tested, but general community testing (pillar 2) can only show the rate of increase or decrease, it's always going to overestimate the prevalence
 
Fit and massage any figures you like to your own personal agenda because let's face that's all people do. I'm non political, I gave up on all that shit years ago. I'm self employed so run my own life and own economy but yesterday's announcement regarding Christmas I thought was brilliant, as long as you love going to parties and wakes. All these people who cant go one, yes one fucking day without having to see someone or other members of their family they probably dont bother seeing all year, everybody all of a sudden is making plans for big Christmas get togethers.
What are the government doing? Who the hell comes up with this absolute crap. Sometimes I think I would like a dictator, or at least someone who's got a pair of bollocks that would actually make some tough rules and stick to them.
This lot are just giving people licence to party. Well I hope everyone enjoys themselves and let's not forget it's not all bad news because you can have your big family get together at Christmas then in January you can have up to 30 people at your funeral....Enjoy.
Ps.
Nobody's mentioned New Years Eve yet.
Cant wait for the announcement on that!!!
 
The thing is, we're just at the peak of the second wave with 600 deaths per day, coming out of semi lock-down 2 into a tiered system that didn't even work properly previously and, on top of that... It's Christmaaaaaaaaaas!!!!!

What could possibly go wrong?

The vaccine roll-out will occur in the next 3 - 9 months.

I'm going to wait and "party" then, I think.
 
NottyImp said:
The thing is, we're just at the peak of the second wave with 600 deaths per day, coming out of semi lock-down 2 into a tiered system that didn't even work properly previously and, on top of that... It's Christmaaaaaaaaaas!!!!!

What could possibly go wrong?

The vaccine roll-out will occur in the next 3 - 9 months.

I'm going to wait and "party" then, I think.
Click to expand...

I think I agree, it'll be good to see the Stands getting fuller again obviously, but gonna wait till next season when hopefully we will be back to near on Capacity.
 
The Govt is between a rock and hard place on Christmas.

A draconian set of rules - continuation of the current lock-down for example - will lead a significant amount of the population to say 'sod that, we've been good for 9 months, we've had enough' and will do their own thing leading to uncontrolled mixing and a spike in infections, possibly significant.

A more considered set of rules, such as those now announced, will lead to another spike in infections but one which is more containable as the aforementioned significant amount of the population will think the advice reasonable and follow it, including the advice to be careful about contacts in the 2 weeks before and after.

Whatever the Govt does, there will be a small proportion of stupid people 'who don't belive in the laws' or think Covid is 'a hoax' and will do their own thing.

From what I can gather in the paper today, New Year is cancelled.

I think they've actually got this broadly right.
 
Back to the OP, there's also more detail on the return of supporters to games and specifically the Code of Conduct anyone attending a match will need to sign up to, and will be out on their ear if they break, possibly with a longer ban if its serious.

Attendees will be, for us, all season ticket holders, signed up for track and trace protocols and well spaced in the ground so any non compliance easy to spot.

The whole experience will be very different, and very Big Brother, but necessary under the circumstances. Not everyone will feel comfortable about attending and that's their choice, if it was me I might be inclined to let the first couple of games pass to see how it works in practice.

Much of the approach, including setting limits to respond to local tiers, seems to be based on the German experience which the research body behind the formulation of these proposals looked at very closely.

Again, it feels like a resonable balance for a path to get spectators back at live sport events with a reasonable degree of risk mitigation.
 
MaineRoad_96 said:
No point.
Click to expand...

In normal situations I'd probably agree, but we are witnessing an unprecedented style of winning football under MA, so I don't think you need to get tanked up to appreciate it ..... in days of yore getting hammered numbed the pain of yet another hapless defeat at Spotland. :guiness:
 
Norfolk Imp said:
In normal situations I'd probably agree, but we are witnessing an unprecedented style of winning football under MA, so I don't think you need to get tanked up to appreciate it ..... in days of yore getting hammered numbed the pain of yet another hapless defeat at Spotland. :guiness:
Click to expand...

Ha ha, fair point.
 
clanfordimp said:
As if football isn't becoming sanitised enough!!
I'll be waiting till I can stand up, drink, eat, go for a piss without putting my hand up, abuse the officials, cheer when we score and chant abusive songs at the opposition fans before I go back.
That's a proper football day out.
Click to expand...

You're so 20th Century! :lol:
 
No matter how we see the tier system and which tier Lincoln(shire) should be in the methodology is published how it will be calculated:

"
Decisions on tiers are based on public health recommendations informed by the following factors:
  • Case detection rate - in all age groups and, in particular, the over-60s
  • How quickly case rates are rising or falling
  • Positivity in the general population
  • Pressure on the NHS - including current and projected NHS capacity
  • Local context and exceptional circumstances, such as a local but contained outbreak
An area could be moved up a tier if these indicators are not improving, and likewise down to a lower one if they improve....."

Due to Lincoln(shire) not having a lot hospitals in one area unlike London, Manchester, Birmingham then that could be the 'driver' for the area.
 
Tier 3, then. Not unexpected.

Tbh, I'm not sure it'd be financially viable anyway until we're allowed more in than ST holders in.
 
Hopefully a bit longer in tier 3 will bring the infection rate down, although I’m not confident everyone will behave.
 
Luke Imp said:
Tier 3, then. Not unexpected.

Tbh, I'm not sure it'd be financially viable anyway until we're allowed more in than ST holders in.
Click to expand...

In terms of cash flow now yes, but think about all the credit Lincoln will owe season ticket holders come the end of the season. Is it £5 per ticket if they have signed on to ifollow... more if not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.