Fans Back At VP - A Plan

The problem is that you make a number of assumptions that don't hold water.

Yes, we do accept multiple risks in normal everyday life. But the likelihood and seriousness of most of those risks is low, and we can control many of them by our own behaviour. But with Covid 19 we can't control the risks as efficiently because, a) we don't know who's got it; b) a person who has it often doesn't know they have it and c) we can't control the behaviour of others in crowd situations.

When I go for daily walks around Baildon, there is usually plenty of space, the numbers out and about are low and most people observe social distancing. But even then there are a few idiots who don't. The nearer I walk to Shipley, the more people are around and the greater the number who don't seem to give a toss about the two metre rule. Most, though not all, of these are younger people, who clearly and for good reason don't feel as worried as I, in my 60s, do.

There is a huge generational difference in the risks. Young people, by nature, tend to think and act like they're immortal, as I did. I often see groups of kids out, clearly not from the same household, not observing social distancing. And in this case, for most of them, the risk of suffering serious harm is tiny. But from middle age onwards that risk increases greatly. Is it realistic to expect loads of kids at matches to recognise the risks to their elders and keep their distance at all times? I don't think so. And then add in the older Covidiots who should know better, but don't.

I sit in C block, main stand. I reckon the average age in there is late 40s at least and there are many in their 60s and 70s. I just can't see many being prepared to take the risks that your plan entails.

I recognise what you mean about time and life slipping away. Hopefully I have another 20 years left. Well, I'd rather cower away for the next year if that's what it takes, rather than have what's left taken from me prematurely. Maybe you are younger and don't see it that way but I believe that many will take my viewpoint. Football is important to me, but not as much as life.

 

The lifeblood of the club should definitely be given first priority about entry. Then probably the regular season ticket holders could be contacted if there are any left.

 

Well, dont get your hopes up for autumn/winter 2020, saw an article in yesterday's daily torygraph(as it is PPV could not click on it) but a certain doc. hans kluge of the WHO reckons a second wave is waiting for us then as the killer virus mingles in with the usual winter virus' in circulation.
Now it is the WHO so what do they know but it is often said "winter kills".

 

That's just not a plausible route to take. What if a vaccine is never found?

 

They could open grounds to healthy people now (and vaccinated compromised people in future). The virus has only killed 1020 people in English hospitals of ALL ages with NO pre-existing conditions, of which only 215 were under 60. There is something weird about this virus if it has killed only 372 uncompromised over 80s while 9925 compromised over 80s have died. Maybe some of their drugs are somehow interacting with the virus to increase fatality. Death rates for healthy people are really low - even if old. Clubs should just say only uncompromised people should turn up, in which case you are more at risk from flu and custom and practice would not see liability accepted for that. If compromised turn up, we don't accept liability because we told you not to come until you've been vaccinated. It's harsh but entirely realistic and could be implemented now.

Click on "Pre-existing Conditions" for compromised/uncompromised data by age for English hospitals

http://covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/

 

It's not actually a 100% guarantee that the 2m works any better than 1m. Plenty of countries have set it at less than our 2m and had lower infection rates

But these lower infection rates, nearly always coincide with those with lower population densities - which actually the most important fact in spread. And washing hands is still the most important factor in not spreading

So crowds of any description are going to be very hard for a government to risk but the risk has been over-played when we are outdoors (you will note, that there is absolutely no evidence that the Liverpool / Atletico Madrid match, 'seeded' our poor scouse friends and they've ended up with more cases and deaths - that's because they haven't, if anything they've actually got less)

i.e. if we can actually not touch each other (virtually impossible in a footie ground at present I know) then there is a way for fans to be allowed

 

Indoors, yes

Outside is definitely different

Not saying the 2m rule will be abandoned any time soon - but there is more flexibility for this getting lowered outside

 

I agree

 

As we keep pointing out. it's okay restricting the stadium to "low risk" people. That's fine.

But are those low risk people going to risk then transmitting that to the more vulnerable people they inevitably know. It's the flaw in your idea.

 

Problem is, it will take more than a year before it's safe, i.e. back to normal

I'm not certain what the repercussions will be if we say bunker down and out our lives on hold for the at least two years, that is likely to be needed - children never going to school etc

'Safe' is all relative. There is no guarantee of 100% safety in any public setting. We've not decided that we want this new standard, because understandably we've all been shocked by what's happened

So, yes the fans can't come back yet - but football could return without us in the meantime

 

It's not a flaw. It's an ongoing tension in the debate about how to handle it and expanding data suggesting healthy old are not at that much risk alters the balance a little. Protecting the compromised remains priority though. If I was in a household with someone vulnerable, I would not go to football and continue to shield. That does not change. And if we get immunity up in the healthy herd. The virus dies out for the compromised. That was Boris's plan. Given we seem to be around 12%+ infected on (inadequate) blood tests and self reporting data online, and that hospitals coped better than expected, maybe Boris should have pressed on and we would have got through it like Sweden, who seem to have come out of the other side with less economic damage after hitting only 20% infected (perhaps helped by youth immunity?) If Sweden had it right and the virus is now dying out, there are several countries that have reached 10%+ that could press on - Switzerland nationwide has reached 11%. New York State15% Spain like us has 11%+ in Madrid and a few % in less populated areas. Belarus and Tanzania are pressing on with no lockdowns. US had inconsistent lockown and only for a few weeks and is now ahead of us in unlocking. That's what the data I'm reading suggests we should be doing. If we're closer to herd immunity than thought, why've we stopped? Get on with it and then the compromised will be able to come out of isolation in a couple of months when the virus dies away. Instead we're trying to stop the remaining healthy getting it in a misfiring economy where there'll be regular flare-ups and the compromised could be locked up for ages hoping we get an effective virus.

Chinese went one way and it has kind of worked. Sweden went the other way and it's kind of worked. We've ended up dithering in the middle and getting the worst of both worlds without the benefits.

 

The virus isn't currently dying out. It's just being suppressed because of restrictions, even in Sweden.

It is a flaw because saying footballers are in the low risk category misses the point that they'll worry about coming into contact with people who are higher risk and that isn't worth it in the short term for entertainment purposes.

You can't create herd immunity with this disease without causing deaths. That's a simple statement. And people who are slightly higher risk, obese men, BAME people, diabetics, OAPs, etc, shouldn't be expected to completely isolate just so we can have a bit of a jolly up and watch some football. At this moment the the major sacrifice of the relatively few isn't worth it.

 

'Open the ground to healthy people now'. But how do we know who is healthy and who isn't? And who decides?

Outside of frontline workers there's almost no regular testing or contact tracing going on in this country. And many people who have the virus are asymptomatic but infectious, even if they believe themselves to be healthy. Not only that but I'm sure there are even people who know they have the virus but would attend games anyway, because their football addiction is much stronger than their sense of social responsibility.
So, uncompromised or not, are people going take the risk that everyone sat around them is virus free and not infectious? Or that some idiot won't squeeze in too close at the urinal because they don't personally feel at risk and can't be arsed to wait longer?

Your proposal works on the assumption that most people are not really bothered if they catch the virus because the risk of death is low. That might true of young people, but I doubt that many people in their fifties upwards, healthy or not, will see it that way.

 

It’s a very difficult situation what about 70 year olds who are fitter than many people in their 50s. There are to many iffs and buts and people of most ages won’t want to risk it. football with attendances are out for a long time.
Even in the premiership many players don’t want to play yet and if they can’t be persuaded there will be no return there either

 

Healthy is uncompromised people - not on the shielding list. They could maybe all go to football without excessive risk to themselves with the virus around, looking at the numbers.

https://digital.nhs.uk/coronavirus/shielded-patient-list

Over 50s might not see it that way because main media have been trying to convince them not to see it that way but statistics don't really back it up. Media also told us it was dangerous to fit young people when the stats say only 33 people under 40 have died in England that were not compromised. That's sad but not significant threat to your average youngster. Move up a group and the risk is still not much to uncompromised - 220 died aged 40-59.

http://covidtracker.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/

Many of those will have been infected before lockdown started so reflecting more normal social conditions. (Cheltenham!)
Since 6000 of all ages die at home in accidents each year, it's probably more dangerous for healthy under 60s to stay at home than it was to wander around in Covid-19 spreading conditions pre-lockdown - but are they all too scared to stay at home? No. The risks need putting in context for those not familiar with what the stats mean. 600,000 people die every year in the UK . 220 healthy people aged 40-59 died with Covid-19 mentioned in England hospitals. It's sad but in the scheme of things it's not a lot. It's over 60s with a compromising condition where covid-19 strikes hard - about 21,000.

I'm not saying we should all go out and be stupid and ignore the interests of those at risk for which it's a threat greater than flu. I'm just saying the healthy and some younger compromised seem excessively fearful after the media campaign to comply with lockdown. Most healthy people are actually at greater risk from other everyday things at home and on the road that they have become complacent about.

 

common cold is a Coronavirus, might be a while yet for a vaccine

 

It's not difficult at all. 90-93% that have died from this have been over 70.

The scientists even said today the virus attacks age.

Just think we need to stop p&ssing about and tell it straight, if you're under 60 and healthy then dying from this is slim.

 

you’re assuming we actually score.

 

It's a nice idea and we all miss football, but I doubt it will happen. Even when restrictions are eased people will need to feel safe before life returns to normal.

I wonder how many people would buy an iFollow season ticket? The club could make it clear that as soon it's safe to attend matches they'll start allowing supporters back into the stadium, but they can't guarantee when or if it will happen during the course of next season. I'd still buy one to support the club.

The club would need to be innovative to make iFollow an attractive option. I've only used it a couple of times before, I can't remember whether they just show the match or whether you have pre-match and post-match interviews as well?

 

Next season isn't happening for div 2 clubs.