rainbowrising Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 3 hours ago, Have some faith in Magic said: https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN2370OP This man may have some experience. Equally could be basing it on one set of sample results and announcing it as a scientific finding that has no other results to back it up... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/claim-coronavirus-no-longer-exists-provokes-controversy.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 hour ago, North Terrace Gazza said: If Hearts take the SPFL to court and get an injunction to stop the start of the season, is it possible that the clubs could vote to expel Hearts for the leagues? Only if their directors want to be jailed for contempt of court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thereisalight.. Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 5 hours ago, RandomGuy. said: Give me examples of Countries that have allowed thousands into football grounds, ruling out New Zealand who eradicated the virus beforehand, and the figures showing it didnt increase the spread. Well, seeing as very few leagues in Europe are up in running that’s a trick question. Not sure on virus numbers but I’m sure I read about 20000 fans were at a Belgrade game the other night. For the Scottish Championship folk covering their faces with masks/scarfs and standing 1 metre apart would suffice imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Jaffo Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Another tear stained statement from Partick Thistle released in which they are practically begging other teams to spare them trips to Bayview and Balmoor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 16 hours ago, TxRover said: The diffence between plausible and likely is a huge one. His dismissal was of an ignorant statement of a clear falsehood, and, as such, was entirely correct. Donkey references aside, I'm not interested in becoming a test case for "if" the virus "may" have mutated to a "less" virulent form. Well no, there's no 'clear falsehood' at all. You might not believe that it's the case but it can't actually be dismissed as an implausible development either. Oh and nobody's actually putting a gun to your head - at least in the UK as opposed to a failed state like the US - and saying that you must risk contracting a virus for reasons. Adults are free to weigh up the risk based on their own circumstances and decide the balance of shielding/social interaction for themselves. Given that the risk to the healthy population is negligible beyond all doubt now and many countries have successfully opened up everyday life again without an overwhelming number of cases, then that is the only rational way forward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, D'Jaffo said: Another tear stained statement from Partick Thistle released in which they are practically begging other teams to spare them trips to Bayview and Balmoor. They were gash all season. They should take their medicine and get doon. Their statements are tiresome and have the opposite effect in my view. They pander to their supporters but just strengthen the view of the majority of other clubs which is 'Get doon and stay doon'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan57 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN2370OP This man may have some experience. Try telling that to the families of thousands of people that are dying everyday still around the world. Even although the rate of death is reducing, we still have no idea whether this is just a pause during the summer months -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan57 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Another tear stained statement from Partick Thistle released in which they are practically begging other teams to spare them trips to Bayview and Balmoor. I don’t think it is about avoiding those trips -it is about not having any football to play, if league one doesn’t start. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, North Terrace Gazza said: If Hearts take the SPFL to court and get an injunction to stop the start of the season, is it possible that the clubs could vote to expel Hearts for the leagues? I see Uncle Roy at Ross County is suggesting the QC evidence he has seen says they have no case and Hearts should take their medicine and get doon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Just now, jagsfan57 said: I don’t think it is about avoiding those trips -it is about not having any football to play, if league one doesn’t start. Speaking of League One. Shouldn't you be posting in the League 1 forum now? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 minute ago, jagsfan57 said: I don’t think it is about avoiding those trips -it is about not having any football to play, if league one doesn’t start. If you didn't want to end up in a division of pub teams then you shouldn't have been utter dogshit for three years running. Winning a single league game in 2020 might have helped as well, but you didn't, so get doon and sit this one out like a champ. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 12-12-10-10 sorts it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, virginton said: Well no, there's no 'clear falsehood' at all. You might not believe that it's the case but it can't actually be dismissed as an implausible development either. Oh and nobody's actually putting a gun to your head - at least in the UK as opposed to a failed state like the US - and saying that you must risk contracting a virus for reasons. Adults are free to weigh up the risk based on their own circumstances and decide the balance of shielding/social interaction for themselves. Given that the risk to the healthy population is negligible beyond all doubt now and many countries have successfully opened up everyday life again without an overwhelming number of cases, then that is the only rational way forward. Yes, a statement that the disease is less virulent is disproven by the current statistics for infections and deaths in areas where the first wave is still on the rise. Yes, there is a “gun to the head” when any interaction in the location I’m in (your failed state) involves dealing with a cadre of self-important morons who take no precautions because their fearless leader refuses to. There is also the matter of the State government advising that if you are told to report to work, even if you are high-risk, not doing so will result in an end to relief payments despite the fact the same government says it Isn’t safe for you to go out. Yes, there is more than negligible risk in many areas. The R rate in the southwest of England is again above 1, indicating communist transmission is increasing again. The R rate has never fallen below 1 in a number of deprived areas in the cities. I presume you are declaring those areas “non-healthy” then, eh? ”Many countries”, please name the countries that have “fully” reopened to business as usual. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 hour ago, flood said: 12-12-10-10 sorts it 12-10-10-10 is fine. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan57 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Speaking of League One. Shouldn't you be posting in the League 1 forum now? Just hedging my bets until it is finally over 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, TxRover said: Yes, a statement that the disease is less virulent is disproven by the current statistics for infections and deaths in areas where the first wave is still on the rise. No it isn't, given the contradictory experience of countries that have ended their lockdown and haven't seen an automatic resurgence in infection rates. The idea that there is or has ever been a constant rate of virulence is nonsense - it is always subject to change. That's why 'outbreaks' are just that, not permanent, steady states of infection and reinfection. Quote Yes, there is a “gun to the head” when any interaction in the location I’m in (your failed state) involves dealing with a cadre of self-important morons who take no precautions because their fearless leader refuses to. There is also the matter of the State government advising that if you are told to report to work, even if you are high-risk, not doing so will result in an end to relief payments despite the fact the same government says it Isn’t safe for you to go out. This isn't the case in the UK though. Nor does it have any relevance at all to the restarting of professional football matches with crowds allowed because nobody is going to frog march shielding OAPs out of their house and into a main stand. The decision to attend or not is one that any rational adult can make by assessing their own risk, for those who choose not to we should still plan on running a streaming service at an equivalent price. Quote Yes, there is more than negligible risk in many areas. The R rate in the southwest of England is again above 1, indicating communist transmission is increasing again. The R rate has never fallen below 1 in a number of deprived areas in the cities. I presume you are declaring those areas “non-healthy” then, eh? The R rate is next to meaningless when dealing with a handful of infections in a regional subset of the overall data. The number of infectious people in the southwest of England is as small as it has always been all year - in Scotland it is much, much smaller than it was three months ago. The bottom line here is that whether you like it or not, society, the economy and the UK government are not going to sit on their hands indefinitely until the big bad virus is eradicated entirely. Which means that the SPFL has to lobby the Scottish government to ensure that its clubs do not get penalised by leftover restrictions on their trading practices that will be steadily removed or relaxed for hotels, restaurants, bars etc. in the second half of the summer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 3 hours ago, flood said: 12-12-10-10 sorts it Sorts what? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: Sorts what? Eh...Patrick’s relegation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 minute ago, flood said: Eh...Patrick’s relegation It's part of sport. Patrick should have played better if he didn't want relegated. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, virginton said: No it isn't, given the contradictory experience of countries that have ended their lockdown and haven't seen an automatic resurgence in infection rates. The idea that there is or has ever been a constant rate of virulence is nonsense - it is always subject to change. That's why 'outbreaks' are just that, not permanent, steady states of infection and reinfection. Again, which countries have “ended” their lockdowns? China just locked Beijing down again, and has constant flare ups and is of doubtful veracity on statistics. Corona viruses evolution rates are known, and you assertion is not borne out in fact. Your asserted reduction in virulence is solely attributable sheltering. As more of the exposed individuals are self selected from the healthier sub-groups, the death rates naturally fall. Likewise, if we release everyone to move about higgly-piggly, the death rates will spike as the less healthy are inevitably infected. 2 hours ago, virginton said: This isn't the case in the UK though. Nor does it have any relevance at all to the restarting of professional football matches with crowds allowed because nobody is going to frog march shielding OAPs out of their house and into a main stand. The decision to attend or not is one that any rational adult can make by assessing their own risk, for those who choose not to we should still plan on running a streaming service at an equivalent price. Partially true for the UK, but less so than most of the rest of Europe. Agreed on matches, IF accurate threat evaluations are made and released. With such a “young” virus, good data on the risks is hard to come by, hence the trend toward overreacting vice under reacting. 2 hours ago, virginton said: The R rate is next to meaningless when dealing with a handful of infections in a regional subset of the overall data. The number of infectious people in the southwest of England is as small as it has always been all year - in Scotland it is much, much smaller than it was three months ago. That’s bollocks. The R rate data is critical to understanding spread or threat in any area, and is statistically as valid for subsets as the whole, if properly calculated. To suggest that a smaller subset invalidates data contradicts statistics, instead the range of confidence is marginally increased. 2 hours ago, virginton said: The bottom line here is that whether you like it or not, society, the economy and the UK government are not going to sit on their hands indefinitely until the big bad virus is eradicated entirely. Which means that the SPFL has to lobby the Scottish government to ensure that its clubs do not get penalised by leftover restrictions on their trading practices that will be steadily removed or relaxed for hotels, restaurants, bars etc. in the second half of the summer. Here we agree in principle, but your choice of the term “big bad virus” shows your predilection for discounting the outbreak. The SPFL indeed must be active in advocating for decisions that allow it the maximum flexibility in responding to the changes in the country as things evolve. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.