Should English football be suspended?

Champ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
2,407
There’s no anger or outrage, I’m making posts on an Internet forum.

A two week break would be completely pointless, and would just be something done to make it look like something is being done for the sake of doing something. Thats why it’s not even being considered by those in football. All it would do would is massively disrupt the season.

At any point in this corona outbreak, has a two week cut off been enough to curtail any sort of outbreak? Nope.

The majority of PL teams would then have a huge fixture backlog even though they’ve handled their covid situations perfectly. Something like this would show a lack of fairness and integrity.

‘Faux outrage’ isn’t specifically targeted to you, Which is why I said “people” and not “you”. Look in this thread and the general public and you’ll see lots of outrage about football continuing whilst everything else stops. All of a sudden there’s a deep concern for footballers health too.

You seem overly concerned about fairness and integrity. And now it’s the League Cup you mention after I pointed out nobody actually played any league games with most of their team missing. Looks like a change of goalposts.

@ariveded
You’re 100% right, the double standards is shocking. The government are happy to bail out banks, multi million pound private businesses etc but refuse to help the football league meaning they have to survive on their own.
There's no changing of goalposts, I've repeatedly stated that several teams, including United have had player/s missing due to this virus, even if they are symptom free and ok to play, be that in the league or cup games.
This is even worse in the lower leagues.
Training grounds have had to be closed, putting the likes of Villa, Derby, Newcastle etc at an immediate disadvantage, be that in the cup or league.

A two week circuit breaker has been discussed, and considered and accepted by numerous managers both at top level and lower leagues. It has also been thrown out by multiple managers at both levels, but to say it hasn't been considered is inherently incorrect.
A two week breaker would stop alot of the infections if the rules are adhered to correctly, hence the reason it's been discussed and USED in other leagues, Ireland for example, so to throw it out with such disdain is again slightly wrong footed.

I get your take, and I understand your opinions regarding the whole situation.
They make sense, but so too do the points I'm making, so you can't disregard them because they don't fit in with your opinions.
 

Random Task

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
23,526
Location
Chester
Stop avoiding the questions.

1. Are you equally as outraged about TV production carrying on?

2. Has there been any evidence of a (just one) community outbreak traced back to football?
1. It's not a fair comparison. Actors/actresses, footballers and the like are actively working to provide the rest of us with a source of entertainment through the lockdown. A regular joe attending a party is doing so for their own benefit without considering the risks to those around them. Just like the anti-lockdown protestors, they're in it for themselves.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
3,947
Supports
Chelsea
1. It's not a fair comparison. Actors/actresses, footballers and the like are actively working to provide the rest of us with a source of entertainment through the lockdown. A regular joe attending a party is doing so for their own benefit without considering the risks to those around them. Just like the anti-lockdown protestors, they're in it for themselves.
That's what i mean by the comparison, football is getting shammed left, right and centre for first restarting and now carrying-on (even on actual football forum's) but i've not yet seen one derogatory comment towards TV production restarting (in June) and now carrying-on during lockdown 3.0 even though it's a lot more "risky". I'm comparing the level of bile both get not either to people partying that's a whole different ball game. You could add other sports to this aswell, is Rugby receiving the same flack for soldiering on?

Do you reckon TV fans are on digital spy saying stuff like "Eastenders are selfishly given a free run" or "it's immoral for Line of Duty to continue filming" or "it's outrageous I'm a celeb was on during lockdown, one rule for the elite" as that's akin to what the person i quoted said about football?
 

Random Task

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
23,526
Location
Chester
That's what i mean by the comparison, football is getting shammed left, right and centre for first restarting and now carrying-on (even on actual football forum's) but i've not yet seen one derogatory comment towards TV production restarting (in June) and now carrying-on during lockdown 3.0 even though it's a lot more "risky". I'm comparing the level of bile both get not either to people partying that's a whole different ball game. You could add other sports to this aswell, is Rugby receiving the same flack for soldiering on?

Do you reckon TV fans are on digital spy saying stuff like "Eastenders are selfishly given a free run" or "it's immoral for Line of Duty to continue filming" or "it's outrageous I'm a celeb was on during lockdown, one rule for the elite" as that's akin to what the person i quoted said about football?
I don't know mate, you'll have to ask him.

In my opinion, the entertainment business is necessary for our sanity which is probably why it is still in operation.
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
13,660
Location
London
There's no changing of goalposts, I've repeatedly stated that several teams, including United have had player/s missing due to this virus, even if they are symptom free and ok to play, be that in the league or cup games.
This is even worse in the lower leagues.
Training grounds have had to be closed, putting the likes of Villa, Derby, Newcastle etc at an immediate disadvantage, be that in the cup or league.

A two week circuit breaker has been discussed, and considered and accepted by numerous managers both at top level and lower leagues. It has also been thrown out by multiple managers at both levels, but to say it hasn't been considered is inherently incorrect.
A two week breaker would stop alot of the infections if the rules are adhered to correctly, hence the reason it's been discussed and USED in other leagues, Ireland for example, so to throw it out with such disdain is again slightly wrong footed.


I get your take, and I understand your opinions regarding the whole situation.
They make sense, but so too do the points I'm making, so you can't disregard them because they don't fit in with your opinions.
Not sure where you’re reading your news to be honest. Yeah you might have had the odd pundit and manager that spoke about a break, all I can remember is Allardyce (who wanted one for selfish reasons) but it’s not been widely considered at all, not by the Premier League and not by most clubs. I'm not making this up, this is factual.
See below...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/13625703/karren-brady-premier-league-circuit-breaker/
I WAS confused this week when I read that Premier League clubs were considering a two-week “circuit breaker” in the season over fears of Covid-19 outbreaks causing chaos.

It was complete nonsense. It has never been discussed or been raised by ANY club in any of our multiple PL meetings and there are no plans to discuss it.

Our fixture list is already congested and our priority is to finish the season as long as it is safe to do so. And we ALL think it is safe to do so.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-to-avoid-covid-19-circuit-breaker-shutdown
Jürgen Klopp believes the Premier League should avoid implementing a “circuit-breaker” shutdown designed to control the rising number of Covid-19 cases at clubs if at all possible.

“I think the competition can go on,” said Liverpool’s manager, presumably mindful of the severe fixture congestion that would be an inevitable consequence of such a suspension. “And it’s also important it goes on. People want to watch it and, in this case, we are not part of society.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...anagers-not-publicly-ask-circuit-breaker.html
The Premier League have written to clubs to make it clear they will not suspend the top-flight season, following Sam Allardyce’s call for a circuit-breaker to quell the rise in positive Covid-19 cases.

In a letter sent to the 20 chief executives — to be passed on to managers — the League warned that any break in the season could have disastrous financial consequences.

It made clear that Allardyce’s description last Tuesday of a ‘circuit-break’ as ‘the right thing’ was not the message they wanted or expected from the clubs.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...efit-of-two-week-circuit-break-for-covid-rise
"It's not something I've thought about a lot. I think our players have been really good in following protocols and rules," Solskjaer said.
"That's part of the job here, that we as clubs follow the protocols given. I can't see the benefit in having a circuit break, whatever it's going to be called.
Basically what happened was Allardyce opened his mouth and then the media and everyone else ran with it and everyone started asking everyone about it. But actually its not something anyone in the PL wants.

Fundamentally you may have a point with all of this IF things were out of control in the Premier League but it's not and I dont know why you seem to sidestep this fact. It';s quite important. At this current time we have ONE club who have an outbreak, meaning 19 who don't. Why would these 19 clubs want a break for two weeks? All it's going to do is cause a fixture backlog and see them have less time to work with their squads. Logically speaking your theory that it was discussed and considered is completely flawed on this basis.
 

Champ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
2,407
Not sure where you’re reading your news to be honest. Yeah you might have had the odd pundit and manager that spoke about a break, all I can remember is Allardyce (who wanted one for selfish reasons) but it’s not been widely considered at all, not by the Premier League and not by most clubs. I'm not making this up, this is factual.
See below...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/13625703/karren-brady-premier-league-circuit-breaker/


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ue-to-avoid-covid-19-circuit-breaker-shutdown


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...anagers-not-publicly-ask-circuit-breaker.html


https://www.skysports.com/football/...efit-of-two-week-circuit-break-for-covid-rise


Basically what happened was Allardyce opened his mouth and then the media and everyone else ran with it and everyone started asking everyone about it. But actually its not something anyone in the PL wants.

Fundamentally you may have a point with all of this IF things were out of control in the Premier League but it's not and I dont know why you seem to sidestep this fact. It';s quite important. At this current time we have ONE club who have an outbreak, meaning 19 who don't. Why would these 19 clubs want a break for two weeks? All it's going to do is cause a fixture backlog and see them have less time to work with their squads. Logically speaking your theory that it was discussed and considered is completely flawed on this basis.
So no mention of Steve Bruce saying its morally wrong to carry in playing if cases carry on? Forgot to mention that?
Also the fact that the Premier League has issued more stringent guidelines to clubs to try to curb the infection rate at clubs? Forgot that too?
Face it, when managers are talking about circuit breakers or whatever then you know this has been discussed higher up the chain.
No opinion here is flawed, merely there's a difference of opinion.
The only flaw is in your acceptance of someone having a different opinions then yours with valid and decent points.
I hope a two week suspension isn't necessary, but with players, managers etc consistent missing games either through illness or self isolation it may become to fruition.
 

Leroy The Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
13,660
Location
London
So no mention of Steve Bruce saying its morally wrong to carry in playing if cases carry on? Forgot to mention that?
Also the fact that the Premier League has issued more stringent guidelines to clubs to try to curb the infection rate at clubs? Forgot that too?
Face it, when managers are talking about circuit breakers or whatever then you know this has been discussed higher up the chain.
No opinion here is flawed, merely there's a difference of opinion.
The only flaw is in your acceptance of someone having a different opinions then yours with valid and decent points.
I hope a two week suspension isn't necessary, but with players, managers etc consistent missing games either through illness or self isolation it may become to fruition.
Like I said, the odd manager. We have two out of 20 then.
More stringent guidelines is not the same as a two week break though is it? It is actually a deliberate act to prevent having to consider something such as a two week break, so not sure why you’re trying to use it to suit your stance. I’m not denying there is an upturn in cases and that further measures need to come in place.
.
:lol: I just posted a direct quote from the Premier League where they emphatically state no two week circuit break was even discussed or should be considered and told Premier League clubs not to consider it.

I also posted a direct quote from a premier league chairman saying the exact same thing and somehow you’re still claiming the opposite, purely because big Sam and Bruce said some things in an interview. At this point you’re just arguing against the sky being blue.

I’m afraid your opinion is flawed and invalid. You’ve continually sidestepped me pointing out that the overwhelming majority of clubs in the PL are not being greatly effected. Which is a massively important factor in what happens going forward.

- There is no two week break happening.
- There was no serious discussion about a two week break happening.
- A two week break is not appropriate at this point with 19/20 clubs not currently experiencing an outbreak.
- A two week break would cause a massive fixture pile up which no clubs want.

And that’s pretty much where we are at. This isn’t my opinion, this is where the clubs and the Premier League are at.
 

Champ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
2,407
Like I said, the odd manager. We have two out of 20 then.
More stringent guidelines is not the same as a two week break though is it? It is actually a deliberate act to prevent having to consider something such as a two week break, so not sure why you’re trying to use it to suit your stance. I’m not denying there is an upturn in cases and that further measures need to come in place.
.
:lol: I just posted a direct quote from the Premier League where they emphatically state no two week circuit break was even discussed or should be considered and told Premier League clubs not to consider it.

I also posted a direct quote from a premier league chairman saying the exact same thing and somehow you’re still claiming the opposite, purely because big Sam and Bruce said some things in an interview. At this point you’re just arguing against the sky being blue.

I’m afraid your opinion is flawed and invalid. You’ve continually sidestepped me pointing out that the overwhelming majority of clubs in the PL are not being greatly effected. Which is a massively important factor in what happens going forward.

- There is no two week break happening.
- There was no serious discussion about a two week break happening.
- A two week break is not appropriate at this point with 19/20 clubs not currently experiencing an outbreak.
- A two week break would cause a massive fixture pile up which no clubs want.

And that’s pretty much where we are at. This isn’t my opinion, this is where the clubs and the Premier League are at.
So I guess you didn't even read that Mail report then? Which stated several clubs have held informal talks about making the rules even more stringent due to rising infections?

As I said, I don't expect the premiership to be put on hold, I've merely expressed my opinion that it could be done and that it may help in curbing the infection rate amongst players.
This has been done in Ireland for example with managers praising it as the right thing to do.
As I say, it's a difference of opinion from you, doesn't make it a wrong opinion.
Also, one club directly affected by Covid is potentially three clubs affected due to two games potentially being postponed, by again you don't seem to grasp that.
 

Bwuk

Full Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
13,559
If we beat Burnley we'd be top on PPG.

End the season after that!
 

RedorDead21

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
8,328
100% is should. Hundreds if not thousands of gatherings every week of up 50 people due to football. It’s prob one of the last remaining biggest reasons for spread. As soon as we are top, season needs to end.
 

sewey89

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
6,081
Location
Chesterfield
Scottish football below championship level suspended for three weeks.

I can’t see them stopping the PL. it’d be another great decision by our government to suspend lowered league football, the day after the FA Cup third round, where loads of leagues mixed
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
3,947
Supports
Chelsea
So the Bolton manager is the latest to come out and claim football should be halted for moral reasons.

Nothing to do with the fact he's 17th in League Two and won once in the last eight games I'm sure!
 

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
32,204
So the Bolton manager is the latest to come out and claim football should be halted for moral reasons.

Nothing to do with the fact he's 17th in League Two and won once in the last eight games I'm sure!
Moral reasons? Not even cite health but morality?
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
13,040
Location
Somewhere out there
But one, how do we know it was simply summer that got cases down and nothing to do with the lockdown?
how @SalfordRed18.... Because no matter the case load, no matter the restrictions or lack of, no matter the European Country.... EVERYWHERE peaked in April, starting climbing down in May, died in the Summer, starting climbing again in Autumn, likely to peak in January.

People made out Sweden were a special case in June-September, due to how low the numbers dropped without any lockdown, as though Sweden was a magical place where numbers could be brought down without lockdown unlike any other country.
Yet autumn kicked in and cases started rising, and winter kicked in and they started peaking.

Summer sorted it, not lockdown, nor lack of. The seasons, and Summer always does this with upper respiratory viruses in Northern Europe, let’s not pretend that aint the case here also.

Lockdown 1 & 2 in the UK were a massive waste of money, a massive strain on mental health, relationships, abused families, the poor. That ENORMOUS amount of money, into the billions, should instead have been spent paying NHS staff 50% extra for the entire duration of the pandemic, and on improving hospitals, in preparation for this Winter.

Lockdown 3, slap bang in the middle of Winter, is likely needed mind, although vaccines are getting done fast so I’ve little doubt ICU admissions especially will quickly start dropping of a cliff regardless.

Football being cancelled will change nothing there, so it must continue, give people entertainment during these times.
 
Last edited:

SalfordRed18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
7,931
Location
Salford
Supports
Ashwood City FC
how @SalfordRed18.... Because no matter the case load, no matter the restrictions or lack of, no matter the European Country.... EVERYWHERE peaked in April, starting climbing down in May, died in the Summer, starting climbing again in Autumn, likely to peak in January.

People made out Sweden were a special case in June-September, due to how low the numbers dropped without any lockdown, as though Sweden was a magical place where numbers could be brought down without lockdown unlike any other country.
Yet autumn kicked in and cases started rising, and winter kicked in and they started peaking.

Summer sorted it, not lockdown, nor lack of. The seasons, and Summer always does this with upper respiratory viruses in Northern Europe, let’s not pretend that aint the case here also.

Lockdown 1 & 2 in the UK were a massive waste of money, a massive strain on mental health, relationships, abused families, the poor. That ENORMOUS amount of money, into the billions, should instead have been spent paying NHS staff 50% extra for the entire duration of the pandemic, and on improving hospitals, in preparation for this Winter.

Lockdown 3, slap bang in the middle of Winter, is likely needed mind, although vaccines are getting done fast so I’ve little doubt ICU admissions especially will quickly start dropping of a cliff regardless.

Football being cancelled will change nothing there, so it must continue, give people entertainment during these times.
Love how you missed out the second point completely.

Covid certainly wasn't "solved" in the summer it be daft to think that.

But regardless of that, there would be more deaths due to the strain on hospitals without a lockdown. What do you not understand about that?

We had x amount of deaths before covid was "solved" in the summer, instead of the much worse y amount of deaths because of lockdowns.

Scary people still don't understand this.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
13,040
Location
Somewhere out there
Love how you missed out the second point completely.

Covid certainly wasn't "solved" in the summer it be daft to think that.

But regardless of that, there would be more deaths due to the strain on hospitals without a lockdown. What do you not understand about that?

We had x amount of deaths before covid was "solved" in the summer, instead of the much worse y amount of deaths because of lockdowns.

Scary people still don't understand this.
The first wave was ”solved” ffs, wasn’t that obvious? Considering I was saying that lockdown 3 is likely required?

And no, the UK locked down in late late March, so that had little effect on the peak in April, and hospitals in April weren’t close to being overwhelmed, so no, there wouldn’t have been more deaths from “hospital strain”.

The first wave was solved by Summer, otherwise can you explain why no lockdown or light light lockdowns also got past April peak and stayed low until October?

It was a massive waste however you paint it, and the NHS should instead have been rewarded with those wasted billions.
 

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
I'm genuinely shocked that most of you are still afraid of "dying" from this virus...

Survival rate is over 99%. Do you guys do some research?
 

SalfordRed18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
7,931
Location
Salford
Supports
Ashwood City FC
The first wave was ”solved” ffs, wasn’t that obvious? Considering I was saying that lockdown 3 is likely required?

And no, the UK locked down in late late March, so that had little effect on the peak in April, and hospitals in April weren’t close to being overwhelmed, so no, there wouldn’t have been more deaths from “hospital strain”.

The first wave was solved by Summer, otherwise can you explain why no lockdown or light light lockdowns also got past April peak and stayed low until October?

It was a massive waste however you paint it, and the NHS should instead have been rewarded with those wasted billions.
How can you say it had little effect on the peak in April when it literally has all the effect on the peak in April? It would have been higher and longer without a lockdown. You say it was late late march, it was the 22nd if memory serves correct, meaning the effects of lockdown were unquestionably seen in April.

Ridiculous.

I'm genuinely shocked that most of you are still afraid of "dying" from this virus...

Survival rate is over 99%. Do you guys do some research?
If you're not joking you're an absolute moron and you can report me for that.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
20,227
Location
My wit's end
If we beat Burnley we'd be top on PPG.

End the season after that!
PositionTeamPPtsPPG
1Manchester United16332.0625
2Liverpool17331.941176
3Manchester City15291.933333
4Leicester17321.882353
5Tottenham16291.8125
6Everton16291.8125
7Aston Villa15261.733333
8Southampton17291.705882
9Chelsea17261.529412
10West Ham17261.529412
11Arsenal17231.352941
12Leeds17231.352941
13Wolverhampton Wanderers17221.294118
14Crystal Palace17221.294118
15Newcastle United16191.1875
16Burnley15161.066667
17Brighton17140.823529
18Fulham15110.733333
19West Bromwich Albion1780.470588
20Sheffield United1720.117647

We're already top.
 

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
How can you say it had little effect on the peak in April when it literally has all the effect on the peak in April? It would have been higher and longer without a lockdown. You say it was late late march, it was the 22nd if memory serves correct, meaning the effects of lockdown were unquestionably seen in April.

Ridiculous.


If you're not joking you're an absolute moron and you can report me for that.
I'm not joking if you read sources outside of CNN you'll see that the overall case fatality is quite low for this "deadly" virus. In Canada it was 2.3% https://ipac-canada.org/coronavirus-resources.php

I will now be labelled as a conspiracy theorist as I don't agree with the massive hysteria about this deadly virus killing 2 out of 100 people it "infects"

I honestly believe our response to this virus was terrible, and it's sad how everybody will label you a covid denier or conspiracy theorist if you hold such beliefs.
 

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
The only thing lockdowns do is let the rich get richer (aka big businesses thrive and stay open while the majority of small businesses will be wiped out, people lose jobs, etc)

Suicides go up, mental health issues increase ten fold, addictions and abuse increase tenfold.

The lockdowns were a complete shambles for this "deadly virus".

Think about it, if this virus was so deadly why are our government leaders taking it as a joke - going on vacations, breaking all the rules that they set out?
 

The Serb

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
7
Supports
Red Star Belgrade
I'm genuinely shocked that most of you are still afraid of "dying" from this virus...

Survival rate is over 99%. Do you guys do some research?
Completely agree with you to be honest mate. We’ll both probably get our heads bitten off here for saying it though.
 

RedorDead21

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
8,328
I'm genuinely shocked that most of you are still afraid of "dying" from this virus...

Survival rate is over 99%. Do you guys do some research?
errr my friend is 45 and been in ICU for 3 weeks. Her family have been told not to expect a recovery. Even if your statement was true which it isn’t, most people would care if 1 person in every 100 was dying needlessly..especially if that one person was someone you loved.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
13,040
Location
Somewhere out there
How can you say it had little effect on the peak in April when it literally has all the effect on the peak in April? It would have been higher and longer without a lockdown. You say it was late late march, it was the 22nd if memory serves correct
Your memory doesn't, it was 26th March.

It takes lockdown weeks to have any effect, we know this without any doubt now don't we? Because cases increase EVERYWHERE for the first weeks after lockdown as people pass it on to everyone within their close circles.
Ireland's lockdown started on 12th March.
The UK:s had little effect, but keep forgiving your government for closing shop after the horse had already bolted, costing billions, causing issues for years to come, not least with mental health, and all for nothing.

It's been the blind leading the blind in the UK, 3 lockdowns, tier systems, travel corridors (but rich exempt), bubbles, and still some of the absolute worst numbers in Europe. Yet here you are in January 2021, still thinking they somehow got lots right and "saved lives", they didn't.

Now, some mod please threadban me, I don't have the self discipline not to reply. I'm too desperate for people to think critically about the UK government's shit handling of all this.
 
Last edited:

SalfordRed18

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
7,931
Location
Salford
Supports
Ashwood City FC
Memory doesn't, 26 March.

It takes lockdown weeks to have any effect, we know this without doubt, Ireland's started on 12th March, and would have had an effect on April numbers. The UK had little effect, but keep forgiving your government for closing shop after the horse had already bolted, costing billions, causing issues for years to come, not least with mental health, and all for nothing.
Lockdown started 23rd of march that's a fact stop lying. Everything shut by the 23rd of may and the public were instructed to stay at home. Realistically started from the 21st infact because pubs shut on the Friday night, the 20th. Legislation might have come at a later date but the UK were in a lockdown come the 23rd arguably earlier.

You'd start to see the effects of lockdown the week of the 6th and certainly the week of the 13th. And by may cases were decreasing before the summer.

Stop rewriting history to suit your agenda.
 

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
errr my friend is 45 and been in ICU for 3 weeks. Her family have been told not to expect a recovery. Even if your statement was true which it isn’t, most people would care if 1 person in every 100 was dying needlessly..especially if that one person was someone you loved.
I'm sorry about your friend. I have had several family members get it and survive. Some a lot older than 45. My aunt who's 70 beat it. My friends 85 year old grandma beat it. I think it really has to do with underlying conditions.

But if we close the whole economy down and continue going into lockdowns, setting curfews, more than 2 out of 100 people will die.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
3,947
Supports
Chelsea
I'm not joking if you read sources outside of CNN you'll see that the overall case fatality is quite low for this "deadly" virus. In Canada it was 2.3% https://ipac-canada.org/coronavirus-resources.php

I will now be labelled as a conspiracy theorist as I don't agree with the massive hysteria about this deadly virus killing 2 out of 100 people it "infects"

I honestly believe our response to this virus was terrible, and it's sad how everybody will label you a covid denier or conspiracy theorist if you hold such beliefs.
I do believe lockdown/restrictions were needed to an extent as it's about hospital capacity, once the vaccine makes that manageable the restrictions will get relaxed although i'm sure we'll have some nutters screaming "if lockdown saves one life we should keep going until eradication".

What worries me is longer term, governments will be taking note on how easy the public submitted to certain restrictions and if we get a wrongen in power then that's a hugely scary thought. Now what i mean by certain restrictions is not what has to be done to reduce spread but things that have minimul at worst spread risk and next to no outbreak risk, like sitting on a park bench, meeting a friend for a coffee 1 on 1, playing tennis outside or golf on a golfcourse, there's literally no justification for those to be made illegal (and it will probably cost lives as people who use those things as a release now can't hence causing unnecessary deaths that we're suppose to be locking down to stop) and the fact it's been accepted by the public lying down scares the hell out of me thinking about the bigger picture.
 
Last edited:

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
Your memory doesn't, it was 26th March.

It takes lockdown weeks to have any effect, we know this without any doubt now don't we? Because cases increase EVERYWHERE for the first weeks after lockdown as people pass it on to everyone within their close circles.
Ireland's lockdown started on 12th March.
The UK:s had little effect, but keep forgiving your government for closing shop after the horse had already bolted, costing billions, causing issues for years to come, not least with mental health, and all for nothing.

It's been the blind leading the blind in the UK, 3 lockdowns, tier systems, travel corridors (but rich exempt), bubbles, and still some of the absolute worst numbers in Europe. Yet here you are in January 2021, still thinking they somehow got lots right and "saved lives", they didn't.

Now, some mod please threadban me, I don't have the self discipline not to reply. I'm too desperate for people to think critically about the UK government's shit handling of all this.
So much this.

It's sad because if we even attempt to criticize the Western world's response to this virus we will be labelled all sorts of things. The fact is that UK much like Canada where I'm from, did not handle this virus correctly. We made a mockery of ourselves.
 

United58

Full Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
2,051
Location
Ireland
I do believe lockdown/restrictions were needed to an extent as it's about hospital capacity, once the vaccine makes that manageable the restrictions will get relaxed although i'm sure we're have some nutters screaming "if lockdown saves one life we should keep going until eradication".

What worries me is longer term, governments will be taking note on how easy the public submitted to certain restrictions and if we get a wrongen in power then that's a hugely scary thought. Now what i mean by certain restrictions is not what has to be done to reduce spread but things that have minimul at worst spread risk and next to no outbreak risk, like sitting on a park bench, meeting a friend for a coffee 1 on 1, playing tennis outside or golf on a golfcourse, there's literally no justification for those to be made illegal (and it will probably cost lives as people who use those things as a release now can't hence causing unnecessary deaths that we're suppose to be locking down to stop) and the fact it's been accepted by the public lying down scares the hell out of me thinking about the bigger picture.
Wasn't there a state in Australia that made walking your dog illegal?
 

Ronaldo's Mum Eh?

Ronaldo is shite
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
5,098
Location
TORONTO
Quality control
I do believe lockdown/restrictions were needed to an extent as it's about hospital capacity, once the vaccine makes that manageable the restrictions will get relaxed although i'm sure we're have some nutters screaming "if lockdown saves one life we should keep going until eradication".

What worries me is longer term, governments will be taking note on how easy the public submitted to certain restrictions and if we get a wrongen in power then that's a hugely scary thought. Now what i mean by certain restrictions is not what has to be done to reduce spread but things that have minimul at worst spread risk and next to no outbreak risk, like sitting on a park bench, meeting a friend for a coffee 1 on 1, playing tennis outside or golf on a golfcourse, there's literally no justification for those to be made illegal (and it will probably cost lives as people who use those things as a release now can't hence causing unnecessary deaths that we're suppose to be locking down to stop) and the fact it's been accepted by the public lying down scares the hell out of me thinking about the bigger picture.
The first lockdown was needed as we had no fecking clue about what this virus was.

I agree with that because even I thought we would all be fecked. I thought this would kill 10% of the world's population. But we are now a year on from this "deadly virus" and we have so much information that we can make sound and logical decisions.

Carrying on with lockdowns and FORCING people to vaccinate for a virus that is not deadly in the slightest is a joke. We should be more concerned about getting people healthy to combat the virus, not looking to force vaccinations and wear masks 24/7.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
773
I'm sorry about your friend. I have had several family members get it and survive. Some a lot older than 45. My aunt who's 70 beat it. My friends 85 year old grandma beat it. I think it really has to do with underlying conditions.

But if we close the whole economy down and continue going into lockdowns, setting curfews, more than 2 out of 100 people will die.
Which is surely a good argument for a proper lockdown done once, rather than multiple lockdowns done badly?
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
6,743
Location
Blitztown
The first lockdown was needed as we had no fecking clue about what this virus was.

I agree with that because even I thought we would all be fecked. I thought this would kill 10% of the world's population. But we are now a year on from this "deadly virus" and we have so much information that we can make sound and logical decisions.

Carrying on with lockdowns and FORCING people to vaccinate for a virus that is not deadly in the slightest is a joke. We should be more concerned about getting people healthy to combat the virus, not looking to force vaccinations and wear masks 24/7.
If we don’t lockdown, hospitals will be full for at least a year and hundreds of thousands of people will die.

Its that simple. Stop posting nonsense.
 

Cheimoon

Up-and-comer
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,395
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
The first lockdown was needed as we had no fecking clue about what this virus was.

I agree with that because even I thought we would all be fecked. I thought this would kill 10% of the world's population. But we are now a year on from this "deadly virus" and we have so much information that we can make sound and logical decisions.

Carrying on with lockdowns and FORCING people to vaccinate for a virus that is not deadly in the slightest is a joke. We should be more concerned about getting people healthy to combat the virus, not looking to force vaccinations and wear masks 24/7.
Christ, months of this virus and you (and many others) still don't get it. It's not just about people dying. You are right that the mortality rate is fairly low - although you're wrong about underlying conditions in your insensitive reply to @Redordead! a little up. There have been plenty of people who died without underlying conditions. There also appear to be genetic factors (some bodies are just 'made' for the virus), and probably other factors that we don't yet know about. In any case, the point is not just that people die, it's also about the hospitalizations and aftereffects. If we let the virus run rampant in society, hospitals will be overloaded within a few weeks (as they already are at the point of being now, even with lockdowns in place). Non-urgent interventions and screenings are already being postponed, and that would only get worse. They would also be unable to treat everyone with COVID-19, and will have to turn patients away - like in Bergamo in the spring. As a consequence, suffering and dying will go up A LOT, both because of people with COVID-19 that can't be treated anymore and people with lots of other conditions that can't be taken in or that get diagnosed too late. For example, many cancers are treatable if diagnosed early, but hopeless when diagnosed late. As for post-effects, a lot of people who had symptomatic COVID-19 feel bad for months afterwards because of the damage the virus does to the body. That's also not something to just let happen.

Edit: If you think I am exaggerating about the health care system collapsing under the weight of rampant spread of COVID-19, see this article from The Guardian. If anything, I am underestimating the situation by not addressing things like supply shortages (e.g., hospitals running out of oxygen) and staff burn-out.

We should get away from this simple focus on deaths and looking at the broader picture, especially the societal domino that allowing exponential spread would trigger. This s also why the vaccination campaign and wearing masks are actually important. You're not just protecting yourself, your're also protecting others. That's for the other thread, but short version: if you get the vaccine, you can't pass on the virus to someone else anymore - and so you're helping to stop the domino. If you don't care or worry about your own health, at least care about the health of others.

And that's the context where any lockdown of football should be seen. Does it contribute to society curbing the spread of the virus, so everything I listed above won't happen, or at least less? If not, or only marginally - then sure, let's go on, and provide a little fun for people at home. But only then.
 
Last edited:

matt23

Full Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
860
I do believe lockdown/restrictions were needed to an extent as it's about hospital capacity, once the vaccine makes that manageable the restrictions will get relaxed although i'm sure we'll have some nutters screaming "if lockdown saves one life we should keep going until eradication".

What worries me is longer term, governments will be taking note on how easy the public submitted to certain restrictions and if we get a wrongen in power then that's a hugely scary thought. Now what i mean by certain restrictions is not what has to be done to reduce spread but things that have minimul at worst spread risk and next to no outbreak risk, like sitting on a park bench, meeting a friend for a coffee 1 on 1, playing tennis outside or golf on a golfcourse, there's literally no justification for those to be made illegal (and it will probably cost lives as people who use those things as a release now can't hence causing unnecessary deaths that we're suppose to be locking down to stop) and the fact it's been accepted by the public lying down scares the hell out of me thinking about the bigger picture.
Most people have to drive to golf courses or tennis courts - which creates more road traffic related accidents and ties up emergency services.