This one is interesting. It backs up what one expert said the other day. You can't keep saying you are 'following the science' as there is no 'the science', there are loads of different opinions and interpretations of scientific facts, and a lot of science based on supposition not fact.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692
I don't think I'm taking this off topic, (we have the virus thread in off topic for most of the talk) because this is looking at whether the healthy should have their restrictions lifted because
For the non-vulnerable population, coronavirus carries no more risk than a "nasty flu", says Prof Mark Woolhouse, an expert in infectious disease who led the research.
Under 44 years of age, over 300 have died. Many with underlying issues, but some not and that is the problem. Do we put life/industry/in this thread football totally on hold for a low risk? Do we for heart attacks (when the player died on the pitch, football wasn't stopped) or flu? But also, as this report says, some haven't died but have been very ill.
They finish:
It is, he says, all about getting the balance of risk right ...
And THAT is the job I would not like. If players came down with the virus, with all due respect, so what? Many of us have had it, many more will have it. It isn't pleasant, but when I had real flu 10 odd years ago, that was far worse. BUT if a player then becomes seriously ill, it isn't so what anymore is it? And Paul McGrath forbid, if one died....
But as said, the balance of risk, you could die of other things, air pollution for example is killing 4.5m a year (and no one has been taking that seriously enough) so how long do things get put on hold? Lives will be lost if we end up with a ruined economy for sure.
Sorry, got no answers, just questions!