"I'm afraid it isn't as simple as some seem to think." | Page 2 | Vital Football

"I'm afraid it isn't as simple as some seem to think."

There will be no social gatherings before Christmas 2020, as confirmed by the Chief medical officer yesterday. Sport is probably viewed on a par with resturants and pubs so it comes last in the chain. Why people think footballers can play a game of football is beyond me! (spit and sweat and contact)
Again, why would any medical professional, who would need to be present at a game (behind closed doors) see this as a priority given most of the NHS is on hold and likely to view sport as an irrelevance in 2020.

'Normality' will return but we have to have a professional football league to return to, with paying customers this year sometime. Many Clubs in the EFL if a calculated risk is not taken to open their Grounds simply will not be there in 2021 or whenever, and that includes pubs and restaurants in this. Every time I travel 200 miles to a home game is a calculated 'risk' but it is one I am prepared to take , the same to me will apply to attending SB based on the situation as it is on the day. I just hope LCFC will be there in 2021.
 
That's not peer-reviewed, as yet. But assuming it's right, it seems to tell us the obvious that infected people will go on to infect others they live in close proximity to. That would make SARS-CoV-2 pretty much like every other coronavirus, I guess (the common cold, for example).

Also, from the study: "note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category".

They also don't seem to include a "workplace" category, which is odd. Transport makes up a fairly high proportion as well, though. Again, unsurprising.

I've only read the extract, however.

The most interesting finding is that outdoor transmission is so low.
 
The most interesting finding is that outdoor transmission is so low.

For sure, but I'm not clear what that means and how it has been measured. For example - in the context of football - would that finding hold at a packed SB? Technically, that's outside, as are many other public events such as festivals, gigs etc.
 
For sure, but I'm not clear what that means and how it has been measured. For example - in the context of football - would that finding hold at a packed SB? Technically, that's outside, as are many other public events such as festivals, gigs etc.

I doubt there's much, if any, risk of walking the moors, jogging, or sitting on a park bench, or any other similar activities the police seem so keen to punish

There is some risk of being in a stadium. But for most people the risk is low and really no greater than any other infection. I appreciate that most posters here are of an age which puts them in a higher risk category :)

But at some point soon, football fans are going to have to decide if they want to take that risk, because if not then professional football is finished in Lincoln, in England and the whole of Europe.
 
But at some point soon, football fans are going to have to decide if they want to take that risk, because if not then professional football is finished in Lincoln, in England and the whole of Europe.
Very much so.

It would be fascinating to know if .... just for arguments sake (and yes, I know it won't happen).... football was able to resume with spectators on 1st June, what percentage of people would choose to either go or not go to a game.
 
I am a tad confused over some of the posts here but haven't opened any of the links which may assist me but the overriding aspect of lower contagion is the social distancing of 2 meters at least. Now unless clubs physically remove about 2/3 of seating that isn't possible. Getting through the turnstiles would take a couple of hours at least per person.
It doesn't surprise me that it is easier to catch the disease inside rather than in fresh air as that is standard for cold/flu like conditions but large gatherings of people outside where they will be in close proximity cannot take place until vaccines are available. That's the unfortunate reality
 
Very much so.

It would be fascinating to know if .... just for arguments sake (and yes, I know it won't happen).... football was able to resume with spectators on 1st June, what percentage of people would choose to either go or not go to a game.

I would go.

Perhaps Admin or someone could put a poll up.
 
...large gatherings of people outside where they will be in close proximity cannot take place until vaccines are available. That's the unfortunate reality

Then say goodbye to your days of watching football live.

The fatality rate will end up being between 0.2-0.4%. The median age of the deceased in most countries is around 80 and 9/10 of those have other conditions.

You can believe or disbelieve any figures presented, but people need to make that assessment of risk for themselves. Fans have died in car accidents going to or coming back from games, we make decisions about risk to ourselves and our families every day.
 
I am a tad confused over some of the posts here but haven't opened any of the links which may assist me but the overriding aspect of lower contagion is the social distancing of 2 meters at least. Now unless clubs physically remove about 2/3 of seating that isn't possible. Getting through the turnstiles would take a couple of hours at least per person.
It doesn't surprise me that it is easier to catch the disease inside rather than in fresh air as that is standard for cold/flu like conditions but large gatherings of people outside where they will be in close proximity cannot take place until vaccines are available. That's the unfortunate reality

There is also the concourse, toilets etc to consider.
 
There is some risk of being in a stadium. But for most people the risk is low and really no greater than any other infection. I appreciate that most posters here are of an age which puts them in a higher risk category :)

But at some point soon, football fans are going to have to decide if they want to take that risk, because if not then professional football is finished in Lincoln, in England and the whole of Europe.

The infection ratio for SARS-CoV-2 is around 3, at least; 'flu is around 1.3 - 1.4. So coronavirus is at least twice as infectious as seasonal 'flu by that measure. Therefore, I disagree with the point I have bolded in your post.

Added to that, risk also measures outcomes. Getting the disease has generally worse outcomes than seasonal 'flu, especially for at-risk groups. So the risk is higher in that sense too.

Your final point is probably valid but will only become relevant if and when football opens for business again.
 
There is also the concourse, toilets etc to consider.

There's way too much to consider for it to be allowed at the moment. World governments are bankrupting themselves at the moment and they are not just going to say mass gatherings are fine outside before a tested and durable vaccine is available.
I get that the mortality rate will be in reality around the 1% due to many having minor or no symptoms which won't be part of the official figures but having relatives and friends who are within the NHS I know that this illness in its potent form is vile. It is an appalling death to suffer and no-one should be unnecessarily exposed to it.
 
At this moment, not a single NHS front line worker has died of the virus, thankfully.

Sorry, this and some of your subsequent posts on this are nearly as bad as Trump's nonsense about bleach yesterday.

Son's partner is an A&E doctor in greater Manchester and she can vouch that this report is nonsense and she's right on 'the front line'

She's currently in 2 weeks isolation as asymptomatic while son had coronavirus last week, probably picked up from her, fortunately only mild so they are both lucky but many 'front line staff' haven't been.
 
The infection ratio for SARS-CoV-2 is around 3, at least; 'flu is around 1.3 - 1.4. So coronavirus is at least twice as infectious as seasonal 'flu by that measure. Therefore, I disagree with the point I have bolded in your post.

Added to that, risk also measures outcomes. Getting the disease has generally worse outcomes than seasonal 'flu, especially for at-risk groups. So the risk is higher in that sense too.

Your final point is probably valid but will only become relevant if and when football opens for business again.

There are differing opinions about it. For example Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University has said the lethality of Covid19 is "in the range of seasonal flu and that for people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global hotspots is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is "completely negligible"

But we shall see when the current panic is over, and deaths in the UK peaked over two weeks ago.

And the longer the time before football does re-start, the more likelihood that it won't
 
Sorry, this and some of your subsequent posts on this are nearly as bad as Trump's nonsense about bleach yesterday.

Son's partner is an A&E doctor in greater Manchester and she can vouch that this report is nonsense and she's right on 'the front line'

She's currently in 2 weeks isolation as asymptomatic while son had coronavirus last week, probably picked up from her, fortunately only mild so they are both lucky but many 'front line staff' haven't been.

That report is by the NHS' own house journal. It refers to deaths and I was quite clear about that.
 
Aforementioned A&E doctor has seen people die of this and agree with Sedgley, its a vile and undignified, they basically drown
 
There are differing opinions about it. For example Prof John Ioannidis of Stanford University has said the lethality of Covid19 is "in the range of seasonal flu and that for people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk even in the global hotspots is comparable to the daily car ride to work, while for healthy people under 65 years of age, the mortality risk is "completely negligible"

But we shall see when the current panic is over, and deaths in the UK peaked over two weeks ago.

And the longer the time before football does re-start, the more likelihood that it won't

I think he's wrong. And the reason for that is I don't recall seasonal 'flu causing 1000 deaths per day at any time other than in 1918. I think it will end up being significantly more lethal than seasonal 'flu.
 
The problem with these analyses of infection and death rates compared with other illnesses is its all based on incomplete statistical data because things are moving so rapidly and testing has inaccuracies - 70-80% false negatives.

Basically, its a guess.