Football to possible start next month

[bobby01]

I just wonder,( no fact or information behind it) that if the FA come up with a decision the Premier League don't like, they will pursue their ultimate goal of a breakaway from the FA.

[Wolf]

Danny Rose should be furloughed immediately.

[Statto]

I see Danny Rose in the papers today moaning about the prospect of resuming football and saying "I don't give a f**k about the nation's morale"

So odd to see Rose complaining. Normally he's such a beacon of hope, positivity and gratitude for the fact he gets paid obscene amounts of money despite doing a job of substantially no use to society (except perhaps boosting morale from time to time) which most people would do for free.

Finish the quote by Danny Rose. I understand he said  " I don't care a f__k about the nation's moral it is the peoples' health that I am worried about.
Not an unreasonable statement.

Let's have it right, Danny Rose and other footballers, and even all the coaching, medical and support staff, are still an incredibly small number of people in this context, and the risk to "the people" from them playing a few games behind closed doors is substantially zero. You and I are not going to catch Covid-19 from watching Danny Rose on TV. So he is absolutely not worried about "the people's" health. He's worried about himself, and perhaps his family.

Now, call me old fashioned, by whilst I respect everyone's right to worry about their own health, there are times in life where you have to privilege other things above that. Obvious examples are the many thousands of young men who, 75-80 years ago, did something a lot more bloody risky than play football with someone who might have the flu, to safeguard the future of this country. Less obvious examples in the current crisis are health care workers, supermarket workers, bus drivers, builders and all the many other people that are going out every day, in much riskier circumstances than Rose will have to, for much less reward, to keep this country going. Personally, I'll be out the door like Usain Bolt as soon as I'm allowed. Rose, as usual, needs to harden up and stop whinging IMO. 

[filham]

Well Statto I do understand where you are coming from and agree with the tone of what you say but I have read that it takes 250 people to gather together to put on a televised football match which means some 2,500 people each week would be exposed just for a premier league programme, so there are more than just the overpaid players at increased risk.

However Rose , having identified a risk, would be best employed buying PPE and tests for the people involved, he can well afford it.

[Whitesideup]

I would like to agree with at least some of what Statto says .. don't take this as the new normal !! .. it's not just footballers who may face additional risk - people going to work in London and other large cities using public transport will be increasing their risk profile considerably. Already yesterday, trains and tubes were so much busier. Those travelling include key workers and maybe as of tomorrow, some not so key workers - but all work and economic activity is particularly worthwhile at the moment. Of course it is important to do things as safely as possible, of course we have to stop the spread of the virus, of course we have to minimize the number of people being put in danger of their lives, but at the same time let's not underestimate the effects the damage to our economy is going to have. And at some stage (and I'm not saying it's now) footballers will have to do their bit, because totally safe will not exist again, possibly for years.

[Oakeshott]

"there are times in life where you have to privilege other things above that. Obvious examples are the many thousands of young men who, 75-80 years ago, did something a lot more bloody risky than play football"

That, with respect, is an absurd comparison. Assuming you are referring to the Battle of Britain pilots, and indeed others who fought for us in WW2, they were fighting for something of overwhelming importance. None wanted to die but they were prepared for it given the cause. This virus is clearly dangerous and a bloody nuisance, but it is not something to justify "privileging anything over your life to do. And much though we love it (or at least Fulham) football is not worth a second's thought in terms of taking any real risk.

The pertinent question, therefore, is not the kind of comparison you make but the extent of the risk in various enterprises, in this case football. We all put ourselves at risk from the virus, simply by going shopping or walking along the street, because it is not always totally possible to avoid going within two metres of someone. Above that, everyone has to make his or her own judgements. I've had a blood test at hospital today (a risk I was prepared to take) and the phlebotomist was, I imagine, as PPE'd as it is possible to be, including a perspex or similar visor. Would I do her job with that level of protection? Yes, but not without it. As regards football, a player is bound to be regularly within two metres of another (unless of course he was some of the defenders we have had over the years!), albeit for relatively short periods of time and in the open air. Would I take that risk? As a single guy in good health, probably yes. As a married guy with kids, or a pregnant wife, or my mum and dad living with me, no.

So I am entirely sympathetic to Rose and our own Knockeart. Finishing the season is, comparatively speaking, of absolutely no importance whatsoever compared to finding better ways to source PPE for those in the health and care services, putting in the safest possible arrangements for those who can only go to work on public transport, ditto work places. I simply can't see how football can proceed following social distancing rules until the infection rate comes right down, which is clearly going to take several months. We will all live (or indeed die) perfectly well without it.

[mrmicawbers]

Was quoted recently that approx 350 people under the age of 45 had died of the virus obviously 350 to many but life is a risk to a certain degree.Not saying go back to playing today but if Germany is doing it and that can't be risk free maybe by the middle of June to resume.

[Statto]

That, with respect, is an absurd comparison. Assuming you are referring to the Battle of Britain pilots, and indeed others who fought for us in WW2, they were fighting for something of overwhelming importance. None wanted to die but they were prepared for it given the cause. This virus is clearly dangerous and a bloody nuisance, but it is not something to justify "privileging anything over your life to do. And much though we love it (or at least Fulham) football is not worth a second's thought in terms of taking any real risk.

Well that cuts both ways.
On the one had, whilst getting football back on the tele will make millions of people happier at a difficult time, no it's not as important as defending our freedom and democracy against an evil aggressor.
But on the other hand, the risk of having the flu for a few days is hardly Saving Private Ryan stuff, is it.

[Oakeshott]

"the risk of having the flu for a few days"

Coronavirus is not flu. (Would that it was.) If we could all be guaranteed that the worst we'd be with it was like Prince Charles, Matt Hancock or even Dominic Cummings when they got it, it wouldn't be a problem. But get it like Boris did, and those many of his age and younger who weren't so fortunate and didn't pull through, and that is another matter.

[RaySmith]

But the players won't get it if they've all been tested beforehand, and  so none of the players who take the pitch has it.

Most of us are probably more at risk going about our lives, than the players  will be - we  mostly being  a lot older, and not having testing or medical  back up readily available to us, and often having to go amongst people, even if in an at risk category,  to buy food, or even go to work.

[Oakeshott]

"But the players won't get it if they've all been tested beforehand"

Yes, provided the players and anyone else with whom they come into contact with have been tested not long before the match AND the results are in and clear. If, as in time hopefully will be possible, one can have a test and get an almost immediate result, great. Test everyone on arrival at the ground. All clear, match goes ahead.

Downside: just one positive and the whole team goes into 14 days isolation (unless each player has been kept well apart from his colleagues from the time of their previous tests until after the results of the match day tests are known). Match off. And to the timescale they are anticipating, one team in 14 days isolation may well pull the plug on the whole enterprise. If we were in, say, Villa's position, I doubt we would be happy about playing on day 15 when the squad had been in isolation for 14 days.

[Statto]

Downside: just one positive and the whole team goes into 14 days isolation (unless each player has been kept well apart from his colleagues from the time of their previous tests until after the results of the match day tests are known). Match off. And to the timescale they are anticipating, one team in 14 days isolation may well pull the plug on the whole enterprise. If we were in, say, Villa's position, I doubt we would be happy about playing on day 15 when the squad had been in isolation for 14 days.

You are assuming that an asymptomatic person who has only had the virus in their system for a day or two (ie since their last negative test) is going to be highly Infectious. I don't know the intricacies of it, and I acknowledge that asymptomatic people can still spread the virus, but the extreme reaction of isolating the whole team may not reflect the science. In Germany, generally where players have tested positive, the individual seems to have gone into quarantine but the rest of the squad have carried on training. As to the length of any quarantine, again 14 days seems OTT when the guidance for the UK public was that 7 days is enough. If you change your worst case prediction to only the infected individual (not the whole team) going into quarantine, and even if, as a precaution, anyone else does go into quarantine, it only needs to be for 7 (not 14) days, that is much less likely to "pull the plug on the whole enterprise."

[Oakeshott]

Statto

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that if one has symptoms (or, presumably finds one has the virus through a test without having experienced any symptoms) then one is asked to self-isolate for 7 days. If you have close contact with such a person, usually but not necessarily someone within the same household, you are asked to self-isolate for 14 days. This longer period because it can take a few days for the virus to take hold, as it were, and then some days for it to do its worst and the 14 day isolators recover (hopefully) and are no longer potential passers on.

No doubt that as the Government brings its test, track and trace scheme in later the month we will get those timescales either confirmed or maybe modified.

[FulhamStu]

I wonder if Rose and the like would take a similar attitude if they did not already have £20million in the bank.

[Skatzoffc]

"But on the other hand, the risk of having the flu for a few days is hardly Saving Private Ryan stuff, is it."

You're very flippant with your comments Statto.

The two friends I know who have had it were in intensive care for 3 weeks and close to death.
Thankfully they are back home now and out danger. But 3 weeks further on, so 6 weeks total, have no energy and are still struggling.

[Mince n Tatties]

The only reason the premier hasn't been null n void is money.
Clubs will have to pay back 750 million to Sky.
Most of that has most probably been banked or even spent already.
John Wark has said on local radio that most fans outside Liverpool want it over as its going to be to much to complete now,let's get this beat and hopefully a new season of sorts to start in August.

[RaySmith]

I wonder if Rose and the like would take a similar attitude if they did not already have £20million in the bank.

Just heard a Manchester bus driver on 5 Live. He was refused furlough by his employer, although his daughter is pregnant, and  is armed against catching the virus from often inconsiderate passengers, and having to deal with  cash, armed with only a  jar of hand sanitiser.

[Wolf]

Has anyone who is wringing their hands about footballers returning to work visited a supermarket in the last 7 weeks? Both staff and shoppers are consistently in close proximity to others (considerably more others than in two football teams). Indoors not in the open air. For checkout staff in particular this is constant over a 7/8 hour shift. Five times a week. I really think young, healthy footballers need to get over themselves regarding their proposed return to work, or that industry is really going to be on the financial precipice with all the fallout for them, others that work in the industry and society.

[Statto]

"But on the other hand, the risk of having the flu for a few days is hardly Saving Private Ryan stuff, is it."

You're very flippant with your comments Statto.

The two friends I know who have had it were in intensive care for 3 weeks and close to death.
Thankfully they are back home now and out danger. But 3 weeks further on, so 6 weeks total, have no energy and are still struggling.

I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of it for some people. But the cold fact is, everything is serious for some people - I know two friends who seriously injured themselves on escalators. In footballers' age bracket (say 20-40) for every 2 cases that end up in intensive care, there will be many thousands of cases that don't. And that's based on statistics derived from the whole population, where the 2 that end up in intensive care will probably be extremely overweight, have underlying health conditions etc. Among healthy 20-40 year olds, you're probably going to be talking about tens of thousands getting it for every 1 that ends up in intensive care... which probably makes it roughly as risky as using an escalator.