Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Ad Lib]

30 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

No, what I literally said is that it could be argued that it would counter productive to stop the spread entirely. I most certainly did not say that there would be no advantage to stopping the spread entirely. You just made that up.

It's perfectly clear what you meant by "it could be argued that". Weasel as much as you like.

30 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Yes, there would certainly be significant benefits to stopping the spread entirely (which is impossible but let's say that some significant degree of reduction is possible) but against that (a counter productive factor) is that the spread of immunity would also be reduced which would prolong the overall duration of the pandemic.

Except if it's reduced to a small number of cases which are easily traced and controlled, it's not a pandemic anymore (or for that matter even an epidemic). Central to the definition of a pandemic or epidemic is widespread infection. There's a reason Hong Kong and others have been in a position to relax lock-down and social distancing measures and it's because their track, trace and isolate measures are viable in an environment where the infection rate is low.

If you reduce total new cases to a very small number (i.e. you successfully suppress the infection rate) the urgency for and benefit of "herd immunity" is greatly reduced. We don't have herd immunity or a globally deployed vaccine for ebola but vastly cutting the rate of transmission saved literally millions of lives and was categorically not "counterproductive".

30 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Leaving aside your careless paraphrasing of what I actually said, this point above is where we differ. I'm not an expert and neither are you but my understanding of the consensus opinion of actual experts is that herd immunity is the only way that the pandemic ends. Whether that herd immunity is created naturally or by vaccination is the only serious question.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-03/when-and-how-does-the-coronavirus-pandemic-end-quicktake

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/how-and-when-will-this-pandemic-end-we-asked-a-virologist/

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-outbreak-end.html

There is a difference between answering how the pandemic ends and asking how (elements of) the lockdown end.

The point is that the pandemic, and its impacts, can be brought under control and some elements of normal life restored without reaching a point where either the vast majority of people have already been infected or that a vaccine has been deployed.

It would be much easier and better if a vaccine were to arrive from the perspective of how quickly restrictions could be lifted, but it is categorically not necessary for herd immunity to be reached for the pandemic to be brought under control.

30 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

From that last link ..

Yes of course they end when there aren't enough susceptible people to infect. But that outcome can be achieved by means otherwise than herd immunity: by getting the infection rate close to zero and then tracking and tracing the movements of those left who have it.

30 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Incidentally, none of this involves "[throwing] the general population [to] the mercy of a killer disease". That's the point of the lockdown - to manage health resources so that those who do suffer a serious infection are able to be treated as effectively as possible. Slow down the spread, ease pressure on the NHS, allow the best possible treatment of severe cases, build immunity and meantime buy time for a vaccine to be developed.

You could be at a position two years down the line where there is no vaccine, and (say) only 60% of the population has (had) Covid-19, and therefore where there is nothing near herd immunity, but still be in control of the virus if your measures mean the infection rate is low and you can easily track, trace and isolate those who are infected before they infect other people.

[Shadow Play]

That’s England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty now saying he does not think social distancing rules will be lifted until the end of the year.  

Looks like there is no chance of crowds being allowed into football stadiums until next year as social distancing with fans in football stadium would be all but impossible for any reasonably sized crowd.

[Pull My Strings]

51 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

It's perfectly clear what you meant by "it could be argued that". Weasel as much as you like.

Except if it's reduced to a small number of cases which are easily traced and controlled, it's not a pandemic anymore (or for that matter even an epidemic). Central to the definition of a pandemic or epidemic is widespread infection. There's a reason Hong Kong and others have been in a position to relax lock-down and social distancing measures and it's because their track, trace and isolate measures are viable in an environment where the infection rate is low.

If you reduce total new cases to a very small number (i.e. you successfully suppress the infection rate) the urgency for and benefit of "herd immunity" is greatly reduced. We don't have herd immunity or a globally deployed vaccine for ebola but vastly cutting the rate of transmission saved literally millions of lives and was categorically not "counterproductive".

There is a difference between answering how the pandemic ends and asking how (elements of) the lockdown end.

The point is that the pandemic, and its impacts, can be brought under control and some elements of normal life restored without reaching a point where either the vast majority of people have already been infected or that a vaccine has been deployed.

It would be much easier and better if a vaccine were to arrive from the perspective of how quickly restrictions could be lifted, but it is categorically not necessary for herd immunity to be reached for the pandemic to be brought under control.

Yes of course they end when there aren't enough susceptible people to infect. But that outcome can be achieved by means otherwise than herd immunity: by getting the infection rate close to zero and then tracking and tracing the movements of those left who have it.

You could be at a position two years down the line where there is no vaccine, and (say) only 60% of the population has (had) Covid-19, and therefore where there is nothing near herd immunity, but still be in control of the virus if your measures mean the infection rate is low and you can easily track, trace and isolate those who are infected before they infect other people.

I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear to you. Either I expressed it badly or you jumped to the wrong conclusion in haste. Either way, I've really got no interest in getting into a silly round-the-houses argument with you about the point which you thought I was making.  I explained the point to you in good faith and provided some sources. If that's not good enough then tough shit.

[Thereisalight..]

4 hours ago, Pull My Strings said:

The purpose of lock down and social distancing is to slow the spread of the virus to ensure that the NHS isn't overwhelmed with seriously ill patients all at once. The purpose is not to stop the spread of the virus entirely. Indeed it could be argued that stopping the spread of the virus entirely would be counter productive because then no one will be acquiring immunity. How have you managed to miss this fact?

I know it was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. Allowing potentially infected people on flights to come in and infect people is just a tad perplexing when so many people have a bee in their bonnet about people not social distancing to the max

[Pull My Strings]

2 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I know it was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. Allowing potentially infected people on flights to come in and infect people is just a tad perplexing when so many people have a bee in their bonnet about people not social distancing to the max

Och fair enough. I suppose it depends how important those trips are.

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Shadow Play said:

That’s England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty now saying he does not think social distancing rules will be lifted until the end of the year.  

Looks like there is no chance of crowds being allowed into football stadiums until next year as social distancing with fans in football stadium would be all but impossible for any reasonably sized crowd.

Surprised????????????????????????

[Shadow Play]

54 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said:

Surprised????????????????????????

Not me.  I’ve been saying right from the start that things will get a lot worse if previous pandemics are to give any indication.  I am surprised that some people still think next season will start on time.

[weetoonlad]

2020/21 season will start Oct imo 

The SPFL are working hard for all clubs not just a few 

[Colkitto]

26 minutes ago, weetoonlad said:

2020/21 season will start Oct imo 

The SPFL are working hard for all clubs not just a few 

Social distancing will include players too. You can't have different rules for different sections of the population if you want to contain a virus.

If social distancing rules are not lifted until the end of the year that means no football till the end of the year.

Best hope is finding a vaccine 

[Skyline Drifter]

54 minutes ago, Colkitto said:

Social distancing will include players too. You can't have different rules for different sections of the population if you want to contain a virus.

If social distancing rules are not lifted until the end of the year that means no football till the end of the year.

Best hope is finding a vaccine 

Again, UNLESS the players are tested before games.

[Granny Danger]

There will be some folk on this thread who will end up winning a few quid.

Surely they are backing up the absolute certainty of their predictions with huge bets at the bookies.

Personally I have no idea what going to happen.

 

[AUFC 1910]

There will be some folk on this thread who will end up winning a few quid.
Surely they are backing up the absolute certainty of their predictions with huge bets at the bookies.
Personally I have no idea what going to happen.
 

Correct - we are all just giving our tuppence worth - trying to ease out some form of balance from between going 100% loco to remembering what life used to be like before bat soup burst the baw.

[Granny Danger]

9 minutes ago, AUFC 1910 said:

Correct - we are all just giving our tuppence worth - trying to ease out some form of balance from between going 100% loco to remembering what life used to be like before bat soup burst the baw.

“Bat Soup Burst The Baw” is a brilliant name for a BBC Scotland TV drama/documentary about this.

[Paisley Ton]

9 hours ago, eindhovendee said:

What I came on to ask the P&B boys and girls.

Given that our seasons are definitely over,  has anybody got a feeling in their water or any hunch when the next season might begin.

I cannot see anyway we will be playing again this year, I hope I am wrong.

From what the chief Gov medical spokesman said at 17.00 today looks like social distancing will be in place until Jan 2021 unless there is a vaccine. 

So no chance we will be attending any games until Jan 2021.

[Ludo*1]

3 hours ago, Paisley Ton said:

From what the chief Gov medical spokesman said at 17.00 today looks like social distancing will be in place until Jan 2021 unless there is a vaccine. 

So no chance we will be attending any games until Jan 2021.

Reduced attendance. Most grounds aren't near a sell-out, but having 1 person for say 3 seats or whatever it works out distance wise might be an initial way round this. We're still a long way off even this admittedly.

[Derry Alli]

7 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Again, UNLESS the players are tested before games.

Will this test show up the virus even in its infancy? 

I'm not sure it can ever guarantee to do so. 

Will it only test for Covid? Players having other contagious viruses, will they be stopped from playing? 

Bearing in mind any sort of symptom = 7 days locked in the house. 

[ScottyG]

3 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

Reduced attendance. Most grounds aren't near a sell-out, but having 1 person for say 3 seats or whatever it works out distance wise might be an initial way round this. We're still a long way off even this admittedly.

That could work until the full-time whistle goes!

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

Reduced attendance. Most grounds aren't near a sell-out, but having 1 person for say 3 seats or whatever it works out distance wise might be an initial way round this. We're still a long way off even this admittedly.

It'll be something like that, but it'll still be a question of risk If they were still strictly enforcing all of the recommended social distance rules queuing to get in, controlled exit and toilet/pie queues. Even in the surrounding area might need to be stewarded to remind people to stay apart. You only get in with a mask, stadiums would need to be cleaned thouroughly. Probably won't be cheap to stick to rules that will be imposed.

[RandomGuy.]

4 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

 but having 1 person for say 3 seats 

Hopefully this would be an enforced rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would be our biggest home crowd this decade...

[RandomGuy.]

17 hours ago, eindhovendee said:

What I came on to ask the P&B boys and girls.

Given that our seasons are definitely over,  has anybody got a feeling in their water or any hunch when the next season might begin.

I cannot see anyway we will be playing again this year, I hope I am wrong.

Just here to point out that the last SARS outbreak wasnt "eradicated" until about 25 months after the first confirmed case, and it was less contagious than this.

No idea whether Corona being more infectious will burn itself out quicker, or extend that timeline tbh.

From WHO identifying the virus, to them declaring it "under control", was 6 months.

Again, dont know if this is similar or not.

But going off base history, a rough timeline would see normal life returning around August time, and the virus itself being eradicated around April 2022.