Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, weetoonlad said:

There are a few working groups within the SPFL who are working hard  for all clubs not just a few

My contacts are telling me regarding reconstruction the talks are going well and after the UEFA meeting this week hope to put two proposals to the clubs next week. 

Watch my posts  carefully guys 

Stay safe Stay home and save life's 

Shut up you attention seeking p***k.

20 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

It’s pathetic there’s all this “social distancing”, yet flights are still allowed into the UK without passengers being checked or isolated. I read an article that said flights were still coming in from New York ffs. 

Why have you put social distancing in quotation marks?

Agree though that flights should be stopped, or at the very least checks and quarantines should be implemented.

[Thereisalight..]

5 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Shut up you attention seeking p***k.

Why have you put social distancing in quotation marks?

Agree though that flights should be stopped, or at the very least checks and quarantines should be implemented.

I put it in quotation marks as it renders it futile if flights are allowed in with no checks. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I put it in quotation marks as it renders it futile if flights are allowed in with no checks. 

Doesn't it make it more important?

Edited April 22, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[DA Baracus]

5 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I put it in quotation marks as it renders it futile if flights are allowed in with no checks. 

No it doesn't.

It renders it less effective.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

To be fair, they are prohibitively costly because you would need to pay a squad of players. For us for instance with 4 players and the management team contracted for next season we would lose less paying them with no income than hiring another dozen or so and then charging online subs to watch us. 

Thats is probably the case with most lower league clubs. I have no idea where Ayr sit but clubs who already have more than 11 players contracted would be better playing and getting some income than getting none, but only if the furlough scheme ceases. As long as furlough is available, closed doors is madness for pretty much everyone.

Outside of payroll there are no significant costs in playing closed door really. You presumably still need First Aiders, a skeleton non-playing staff, in our case mostly voluntary, some electric costs no doubt. 

Of course you cant have part of a division return to closed door football and part not. Its everyone or no-one.

Yes, but that's the whole bloody point.

It will be costly because players will need to be employed, but there will be next to no income.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Costs of playing behind closed doors - players and coaches, physio etc wages, stewarding to keep fans out, Doctor, 1st aid team, food for players, medical supplies, heating and lighting, water, transport costs to away games, pitch preparation, win bonuses (if any), cleaning, training costs, equipment

[DA Baracus]

5 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Costs of playing behind closed doors - players and coaches, physio etc wages, stewarding to keep fans out, Doctor, 1st aid team, food for players, medical supplies, heating and lighting, water, transport costs to away games, pitch preparation, win bonuses (if any), cleaning, training costs, equipment

Yup. It's not sustainable. It's not an option.

[rb123!]

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5517425/who-football-next-season-coronavirus/

It gets better, tbf don't think we should pay attention to the WHO considering they didn't announce until the middle of January that this could be spread from person to person.

[Pull My Strings]

1 hour ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I put it in quotation marks as it renders it futile if flights are allowed in with no checks. 

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?

[weetoonlad]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Shut up you attention seeking p***k.

Why have you put social distancing in quotation marks?

Agree though that flights should be stopped, or at the very least checks and quarantines should be implemented.

Sad 

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, but that's the whole bloody point.

It will be costly because players will need to be employed, but there will be next to no income.

Uh huh, and I agree with you. Never the less, it is a fact that some clubs, probably mostly the bigger ones, already HAVE a squad of players employed for next season. Those clubs maybe would be as well playing closed door as not playing if fulough was discontinued. However, as I pointed out, they cant do so unilaterally. We either all do it or none of us do it (which probably means none of us do it).

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Costs of playing behind closed doors - players and coaches, physio etc wages, stewarding to keep fans out, Doctor, 1st aid team, food for players, medical supplies, heating and lighting, water, transport costs to away games, pitch preparation, win bonuses (if any), cleaning, training costs, equipment

Most of these costs will be incurred anyway (or are not actually necessary) if furlough ceases and you actually already have a squad of players. The question is how much more would it cost to run a closed door game. I imagine it could be covered by online subs probably. 

The key issue would be about the number of players already committed to employ at a full wage.

I still dont think playing closed door is seriously feasible for next season. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[eindhovendee]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

I still dont think playing closed door is seriously feasible for next season. 

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.

[AUFC 1910]

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?

Can you show us your evidence for your statement of fact?

[Ad Lib]

1 hour 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 mean it definitely wouldn't be counter-productive to stop the spread of the virus entirely.

For one thing, it would make it much easier to track, trace and isolate new cases as and when they emerge if you're starting from a pool of (say) 5-10 infected people instead of, uh, tens or hundreds of thousands.

[Pull My Strings]

4 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I mean it definitely wouldn't be counter-productive to stop the spread of the virus entirely.

For one thing, it would make it much easier to track, trace and isolate new cases as and when they emerge if you're starting from a pool of (say) 5-10 infected people instead of, uh, tens or hundreds of thousands.

We're not starting from a pool of (say) 5-10 infected people though are we, we're starting from a pool of, uh, millions with no way to test, track or isolate even a tiny fraction of those cases. The cat is well and truly out of the bag. This won't stop by preventing the spread of the infection. The only way that the pandemic ends is by acquiring sufficient immunity in the population which itself requires either widespread infection or a vaccine. Assuming that a vaccine is 18 months way (and that's apparently the best assumption) then the only way that this ends - or nearly ends - before then is for people to continue to get infected. 

I'll grant you though - and everyone else who wants to jump on the comment about halting the spread entirely - that, yes, literally stopping any further spread entirely would bring this to an end. You would simply wait until everyone currently infected dies or recovers and then the virus disappears. Reductio ad absurdum. Given that that's an actual impossibility we can probably discount it from further consideration.

[Pull My Strings]

43 minutes ago, AUFC 1910 said:

Can you show us your evidence for your statement of fact?

You could maybe trying listening to the news or reading a paper.

[Ad Lib]

8 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

We're not starting from a pool of (say) 5-10 infected people though are we, we're starting from a pool of, uh, millions with no way to test, track or isolate even a tiny fraction of those cases. The cat is well and truly out of the bag. This won't stop by preventing the spread of the infection. The only way that the pandemic ends is by acquiring sufficient immunity in the population which itself requires either widespread infection or a vaccine. Assuming that a vaccine is 18 months way (and that's apparently the best assumption) then the only way that this ends - or nearly ends - before then is for people to continue to get infected. 

I'll grant you though - and everyone else who wants to jump on the comment about halting the spread entirely - that, yes, literally stopping any further spread entirely would bring this to an end. You would simply wait until everyone currently infected dies or recovers and then the virus disappears. Reductio ad absurdum. Given that that's an actual impossibility we can probably discount it from further consideration.

You literally said that there would be no advantages to stopping the spread of the virus entirely. The premise of the contribution was that aggressive forms of self-isolation and social distancing would get you down to a manageably low number of new cases and that you could then test and track those new cases to prevent it spreading further.

If you can get the number of new cases down to a small daily number, you do not need to (a) throw the general population at the mercy of a killer disease or (b) to keep everyone permanently inside their homes until a vaccine comes about.

If you get the new case numbers to drop down really low, those who already have it will recover or die within a few weeks, and those who continue to get it can be traced easily because they're in (say) the tens and hundreds rather than the hundreds of thousands. It's clearly much easier to test and track and quarantine a few hundred people without keeping the entire country shut down than it is to try to do it with orders of magnitude higher than that.

That in turn means that you don't need to adopt either two extremes of "natural" herd immunity versus waiting hopelessly and without certainty for a vaccine with the whole country in quarantine until that unknown future point.

A vaccine is much less urgent if you can reduce the transmission rate to a very low or zero point. This is true regardless of whether the population begins to develop a herd immunity.

[Pull My Strings]

1 minute ago, Ad Lib said:

You literally said that there would be no advantages to stopping the spread of the virus entirely.

 

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. 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.

Quote

That in turn means that you don't need to adopt either two extremes of "natural" herd immunity versus waiting hopelessly and without certainty for a vaccine with the whole country in quarantine until that unknown future point.

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

From that last link ..

Quote

Pandemics end when the virus doesn't have enough susceptible people to infect.

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.

[SandyCromarty]

2 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.

There is 292 pages on this very subject, take your pick.

[bad chad]

3 hours ago, rb123! said:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5517425/who-football-next-season-coronavirus/

It gets better, tbf don't think we should pay attention to the WHO considering they didn't announce until the middle of January that this could be spread from person to person.

When are they supposed to have announced it - last October? 

2007?

You're drinking too much of what trumps offering son.