Where will it end... 12th September as it happens

I pretty much agree that we're going to have to be a little bit creative but we can't go against or dispute the expert medical advice no matter what.

If the doctors say it needs to be 14 days and theres no way around it then that's what it is. We can't be bending those sorts of rules for sports, it gives the wrong impression about where priorities lie.

 

Hancock was was in quarantine for 7 days and back to work.

14 days it might have to be but it just means that fixture gets rearranged.

Look, if we don't solve these problems now then next season just isn't happening.

 

A

I can see the return in Germany being delayed now.

I think they have been too optimistic in trying to re-start so soon

 

I think they will try and continue but another team in quarantine would put big question marks

 

If next season doesn't work on medical grounds then so be it. That's just the way it will be. We can't mess around with this and ignore the experts.

The point about just having to get on with it an rearrange the games is more likely but it's going to get very very messy.

 

And clubs that miss out are all ready talking about legal action. If nothing else delays start of next season then the legal action could

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/efl-told-prepare-legal-battle-epic-proportions-if-portsmouth-peterborough-and-sunderland-miss-out-promotion-due-ppg-2847931

 

You do understand that they might not ever be a vaccine. You do realise that don't you?

So this season doesn't happen, next season doesn't happen! Then what?

Shall no one go to work because it won't work on medical grounds!

 

Brighton have just announced another positive case. Strange how it has happened to a team that doesn’t want the current plan to restart the season

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52605961

 

Yep. In actual fact I'm probably one of the most sceptical people I know when it comes to a vaccine being available any time soon if ever.

If that's the case then we'll have a lot bigger issues that whether football runs as it used to do. Even without a vaccine you can't ignore the medical grounds to control the spread and prioritise aspects of life around others.

Football will simply be the same as any other work place. It will need to find ways to work around how to do things within the confines of the medical limitations.

If that means that seasons no longer run from August-May and/or don't involve 1 or 2 games per week then so be it but whatever option they pick needs to have compliance with the guidelines at the heart of it. They can't be changed but unfortunately they're difficult to fit in with team sports that need to fit to a schedule.

 

Strange isn't it! Positive test before the PL meeting tomorrow as well.

Oh and guess what the CEO has just done an interview, dropped the 31k has died line, says everything is about Brighton's self interest, against neutral grounds. Oh but he wants it to restart!

I said the bottom 6 PL have been disgusting throughout this virus and is the least to try to not get the PL restarted.

*He did say the Championship is looking to restart.

 

Bit like with Dynamo Dresden who are bottom of the German second division.

 

I agree.. I said that next season is just date and we should move it but no! League 1 & 2 drop their load.UFEA want CL done by August 28th FA want cup final on August 8th.

I don't believe next season starts if we don't finish this and the lack of flexible is one of the reasons why.

 

To be honest I don't think league 1 or 2 play again for a long, long time. I can't see how it works either financially or technically under any circumstances.

The Premier League are a different matter. They'll play headers and volleys if it means they don't have to give the money back and the votes that are being cast are meaningless. They're just setting the scene for the inevitable legal challenges because it's difficult to challenge the outcome of something you actually voted for.

If money wasn't involved then sports would be judged along the same lines as clubs and gigs. $$$ talks though so common sense goes out the window

 

Noticed how Brighton and Dyamo Dresden don't name the player/players.

I'm not convinced Brighton are telling the truth.

 

You don’t think that might simply be to protect patient confidentiality? There’s no reason why clubs should name players who’ve tested positive, publicly.

 

No, I think it's bollocks.

 

UK men aged 20-39 years, 8.4 million.
UK all cause deaths per year for men aged 20-39, around 7000.
UK suicides per year for men aged 20-39, around 1,600.
Average flu deaths per year hospital only 15-44 years 786 (so aged 20-39 maybe 600).
UK deaths in hospitals with Covid-19 on certificate, men age 20-39 up to May 9th update, 161.
UK deaths in hospitals for 20-39 males for no known pre-existing conditions will therefore be about 15. (just under 10% - 2nd line, 1st table, last link).
If those 8.4m men were fit footballers, what would it be? 5 maybe over the last two months?
But we have only a few thousand footballers. How may would die in 2 months? 0.002? They'd need to play a continuous season of about 80 years for one to be expected to die with Covid-19 on the death certificate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-9th-may/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445313003733
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

I can understand isolating an infected footballer from old and compromised people. That's about it really. I'm not convinced the numbers indicate a significant threat to other fit young footballers if one gets infected. If they're kept together and away from vulnerable people, they don't look to be a threat to each other, so there's no need to isolate the infected players or their uninfected team mates from other teams.

 

So what about a footballers wife and children. Do they stop seeing their elderly relatives or anybody with a health condition until a vaccine is found so people can watch bags of wind being kicked around on the TV.

Theres no right to wrong answer I suppose. It's just to get a gauge on how much people are willing to impinge on other people's lives in the name of entertainment.

The numbers of Covid deaths are obviously artificially low at the moment because we've had 7 weeks of lockdown so I'm not sure such a straight line comparison works.

 

But it takes 4-6 weeks from infection to death, typically. Many, and likely most, of the 161 men aged 20-39 that died with Covid-19 on their death certificate will have been infected before lockdown kicked in, perhaps even at a European football match or Cheltenham races. The risk to footballers' wives won't be much higher and to a child it will be lower. They just need to keep them away from vulnerable people. I'm not saying that's practical. I'm just saying, IF you started a tournament with isolating players, isolating them from each other seems pointless on the available health risk data.

Another point is that those that are less affected by the disease are also reckoned to be less contageous - but that's another debate I would not be able to get stats for.

How much are you prepared to increase everyone's risk of death in future (including yours, mine and footballers' wives and kids) from keeping us in lockdown and damaging the NHS's finances? 5000 extra premature deaths per week of lockdown and counting (from the data I previously posted). Of course the data is likely flawed with crude assumptions but they should be considered. At some point, we just have to use a bit of common sense and gut feeling. I'm not saying you are wrong in your view. I'm just trying to balance the argument with some extra statistics since I feel people are often only looking at part of the picture.