Tier 4 - Restrictions.

[Burnieman]

8 hours ago, GordonS said:

I would be extremely wary about anything I read in The Times, which is about as reliable as a newsagent carrier bag, but if this is true then it would be great. I'm dubious about any claims that it hadn't transferred between team-mates on the pitch - they can't possibly know that - but there have been so many matches in different sports around the world that if there aren't cases of transmission between teams then it would be strong evidence. 

I've not read the article as it is behind a paywall, but surely the story here is that pre-match testing of players prevents spread on the pitch,  do they cover those matches where no testing was taking place at all?

[Che Dail]

8 hours ago, Dev said:

I see that Bonnyrigg Rose have a link to a Sunday Times article which some may choke on, especially those who want to scotch organised outdoor activities. Let's see what the SG and its' hard core Medical Advisers have to say about this.

Below is the intro extract but the headline is damning:

 

Experts find no evidence that Covid transmitted on field | Sport | The Sunday Times (thetimes.co.uk)

Experts find no evidence that Covid transmitted on field

Martyn Ziegler

Sunday March 07 2021, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

Not a single case of on-the-field transmission of the Covid-19 virus has been confirmed in football, rugby union, rugby league or American football during a full year of the pandemic, medical experts have revealed.

Detailed tracing of players who have tested positive for the virus has been carried out in all the sports but in every case the transmission was put down to off-the-field contact, such as in meeting rooms, cars and indoor activities.

The sports’ findings should provide a strong argument that outdoor community and elite sports can be played with minimal risk to the participants — and perhaps that grassroots and women’s rugby union can return without the need for the adapted rules that have banned scrums and mauls.

There's a lot more 'contact' in football than 90 minutes on the park. 

You have training twice or three times a week, and consequently travel between regions. Often with players, coaches, management, committee members piling in and out of shops and supermarkets and sports facilities before and after. 

Ground maintenance, cleaning and various other activities associated with putting a game on... all increasing contact and associated risk.  Then there's the hospital visits for injuries.

And there's folk who must go to the game: hanging off a ladder to peer over a fence or joining a committee to watch their laddie or create a mass march along with thousands of other imbeciles to celebrate a league win.  Not a good look, embarrassing, yet some are now waving a Tory rag about saying it's all safe.

And of course there's the effect it has on the rest of the population, "I can't go to a funeral, but football is entitled - how's that?".

The Government did make an exception for elite and professional sport - which everything below the Premiership and Championship is not. 

The season for everyone else should not have been allowed to start at all - the decision to do so was a selfish one and damaging for the image of the game.  We need to accept that football at this level is not an exceptional case and just fall in line with the rest of the country.  

[AlanCamelonfan]

25 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

There's a lot more 'contact' in football than 90 minutes on the park. 

You have training twice or three times a week, and consequently travel between regions. Often with players, coaches, management, committee members piling in and out of shops and supermarkets and sports facilities before and after. 

Ground maintenance, cleaning and various other activities associated with putting a game on... all increasing contact and associated risk.  Then there's the hospital visits for injuries.

And there's folk who must go to the game: hanging off a ladder to peer over a fence or joining a committee to watch their laddie or create a mass march along with thousands of other imbeciles to celebrate a league win.  Not a good look, embarrassing, yet some are now waving a Tory rag about saying it's all safe.

And of course there's the effect it has on the rest of the population, "I can't go to a funeral, but football is entitled - how's that?".

The Government did make an exception for elite and professional sport - which everything below the Premiership and Championship is not. 

The season for everyone else should not have been allowed to start at all - the decision to do so was a selfish one and damaging for the image of the game.  We need to accept that football at this level is not an exceptional case and just fall in line with the rest of the country.  

In your opinion. The decision to temporarily stop was the right one but should have been back now and start moving on with life. There was no evidence of any,dispite what some claim that it was passed on the park. 

You could have had crowds spread out at this or juvenile levels but people seem to think football as the premier league. It's far safer at pur level than premier league level where train all day eat lunch go into gyms together etc. Reality of training and playing at this level is outside a couple of hrs each day. 

If camelon won the league their wouldnt be thousands outside carmuirs would there.

Everything in life is a risk. Probably in normal times their was more chance of passing on a bug as now as you would have 30 guys in changing rooms and two teams in a short area. Crowds where people are right up against each other. 

Someone at work said to me they dont know if it's the masks and all the handwashing but she hadn't had a cold since. 

It's time to live with it but keep as safe as possible. Not morons like yesterday who probably will have cost Scotland their euro 2020 hosting privilege 

[Che Dail]

23 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

In your opinion. The decision to temporarily stop was the right one but should have been back now and start moving on with life. There was no evidence of any,dispite what some claim that it was passed on the park. 

You could have had crowds spread out at this or juvenile levels but people seem to think football as the premier league. It's far safer at pur level than premier league level where train all day eat lunch go into gyms together etc. Reality of training and playing at this level is outside a couple of hrs each day. 

If camelon won the league their wouldnt be thousands outside carmuirs would there.

Everything in life is a risk. Probably in normal times their was more chance of passing on a bug as now as you would have 30 guys in changing rooms and two teams in a short area. Crowds where people are right up against each other. 

Someone at work said to me they dont know if it's the masks and all the handwashing but she hadn't had a cold since. 

It's time to live with it but keep as safe as possible. Not morons like yesterday who probably will have cost Scotland their euro 2020 hosting privilege 

Yes, we're all entitled to opinion and to have a different attitude to risk and responsibility, and understanding the difference between needs and wants.

Do you accept that there is a risk of transmission in hospitals, shops, supermarkets, public transport, shared car and coach travel, in changing rooms, in sports facilities, in public gatherings?

[AlanCamelonfan]

6 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Yes, we're all entitled to opinion and to have a different attitude to risk and responsibility, and understanding the difference between needs and wants.

Do you accept that there is a risk of transmission in hospitals, shops, supermarkets, public transport, shared car and coach travel, in changing rooms, in sports facilities, in public gatherings?

11 vs 11 football isnt really a public gathering. They say supermarkets are unsafe and they are when people behave like idiots.

I work in one and in 6 stores in forth valley there has been 1 positive case and it was contracted at the hospital and everyone in the store was tested and came back negative. One of the dundee stores bizarrely got it because of a shoplifter. 

Most of the people I know that have had it have came from hospital. 

If people wear masks and keep their distance as much as possible in life whether it's the supermarket or at someone's house then you can be safe. I'm one of the most at risk working in a supermarket. I said on here before I actually felt safer once they opened things up than people piling upto supermarkets 

[Che Dail]

1 minute ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

11 vs 11 football isnt really a public gathering. 

 

I didn't say it was.  But chances are some people at the big public gathering would ordinarily play in or be involved with 11 v 11 football club in some capacity.  Or work in or visit or shoplift supermarkets, with or without a mask.

[AlanCamelonfan]

1 minute ago, Che Dail said:

I didn't say it was.  But chances are some people at the big public gathering would ordinarily play in or be involved with 11 v 11 football club in some capacity.  Or work in or visit or shoplift supermarkets, with or without a mask.

Or they might not have.

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, Burnieman said:

I've not read the article as it is behind a paywall, but surely the story here is that pre-match testing of players prevents spread on the pitch,  do they cover those matches where no testing was taking place at all?

Without seeing the research I wouldn't want to speculate based on a quote from a paywalled article in a shitty newspaper.

[Che Dail]

9 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

Or they might not have.

Evidence from previous events would suggest otherwise - such as when they invaded the pitch at Hampden.  184 arrests.

[Dev]

7 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Evidence from previous events would suggest otherwise - such as when they invaded the pitch at Hampden.  184 arrests.

Whatever views we have - and thankfully they will vary - is it reasonable to try to compare matches at Hampden or the-in the Premier with those outside in the lower SPFL divisions or in the Pyramid or lower?

[Burnieman]

8 minutes ago, Dev said:

Whatever views we have - and thankfully they will vary - is it reasonable to try to compare matches at Hampden or the-in the Premier with those outside in the lower SPFL divisions or in the Pyramid or lower?

Aren't you trying to do that by posting that Times article on half a dozen non league threads?  Have you read the full article as I'd like to read the whole thing and not a headline, can you post it? Does it differentiate between full time professional football/sport that regularly tests, to part time amateur sport that doesn't?

[Dev]

I am no medical person nor am I a scientist. I haven't a subscription with any newspaper - you try cancelling such a subscription - it's a real pain.

However, reports on this subject from appropriately qualified and experienced people don't start with the Sunday Times's article. However, have they even been taken into consideration by the SG? Why is it that such matters as advice received by the SG on this  don't seem to be published anywhere? Maybe the advice is out there and it may support the actions/omissions decided upon by the SG?

Track and Trace (Scotland) lists the following Top 10 most hazardous things to be avoided when it comes to the risk of spreading or catching coronavirus?

Top Ten			Events		%
1	Events and Activities	Shopping	41665		20.8
2	Household or Accommodation	Your own home, or family home	23643		11.8
3	Events and Activities	Personal Care	17250		8.6
4	Work or Education	Health care	11704		5.8
5	Events and Activities	Visiting a health or social care setting	9700		4.8
6	Events and Activities	Eating out	9499		4.7
7	Events and Activities	Visiting friends or relatives	8988		4.4
8	Work or Education	Attending childcare, school, educational	7571		3.7
9	Work or Education	Social care or home care	6064		3.0
10	Work or Education	Other	6005		3.0

[Che Dail]

13 minutes ago, Dev said:

Whatever views we have - and thankfully they will vary - is it reasonable to try to compare matches at Hampden or the-in the Premier with those outside in the lower SPFL divisions or in the Pyramid or lower?

I think you're missing my (hypothetical) point, that in all likelihood people on the march will be involved in lower level football and therefore would be putting people at risk if all levels of play were allowed to re-start now.  

And ultimately that their actions do not help the cause or image of football in any way.  So you make representation to the government that football can be trusted to follow the rules and guidance, when evidently it cannot.

[AlanCamelonfan]

9 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

I think you're missing my (hypothetical) point, that in all likelihood people on the march will be involved in lower level football and therefore would be putting people at risk if all levels of play were allowed to re-start now.  

And ultimately that their actions do not help the cause or image of football in any way.  So you make representation to the government that football can be trusted to follow the rules and guidance, when evidently it cannot.

I think it's likely due to yesterday we will be locked down for longer. Also I think we will lose our hosting privilege for euro 2020 

[Junior Pub League]

57 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Without seeing the research I wouldn't want to speculate based on a quote from a paywalled article in a shitty newspaper.

Why does the Celtic fan think that The Times is a "shitty" newspaper?

[Che Dail]

11 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

I think it's likely due to yesterday we will be locked down for longer. Also I think we will lose our hosting privilege for euro 2020 

Possibly not the former, but if that happens it wouldn't really harm most clubs.  But on the latter point, there certainly is a risk of losing out on the Euros. 

This would come at a financial cost to licensed clubs at all levels because it will blow a big hole in the SFA profit and reduce the dividend shared out amongst its member clubs.

Everyone suffers: we win together and lose together.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Che Dail

[Burnieman]

27 minutes ago, Dev said:

I am no medical person nor am I a scientist. I haven't a subscription with any newspaper - you try cancelling such a subscription - it's a real pain.

However, reports on this subject from appropriately qualified and experienced people don't start with the Sunday Times's article. However, have they even been taken into consideration by the SG? Why is it that such matters as advice received by the SG on this  don't seem to be published anywhere? Maybe the advice is out there and it may support the actions/omissions decided upon by the SG?

Track and Trace (Scotland) lists the following Top 10 most hazardous things to be avoided when it comes to the risk of spreading or catching coronavirus?

Top Ten			Events		%
1	Events and Activities	Shopping	41665		20.8
2	Household or Accommodation	Your own home, or family home	23643		11.8
3	Events and Activities	Personal Care	17250		8.6
4	Work or Education	Health care	11704		5.8
5	Events and Activities	Visiting a health or social care setting	9700		4.8
6	Events and Activities	Eating out	9499		4.7
7	Events and Activities	Visiting friends or relatives	8988		4.4
8	Work or Education	Attending childcare, school, educational	7571		3.7
9	Work or Education	Social care or home care	6064		3.0
10	Work or Education	Other	6005		3.0

So you haven't actually read the full Times article on on-field transmission to understand context, but you're happy to post it here, there and everywhere claiming it proves it's safe to restart fitba, along with your usual sly dig at the SG.  Glad that's cleared up.

[Burnieman]

16 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

Also I think we will lose our hosting privilege for euro 2020 

We won't.

[Dev]

The Times article apparently refers to Professor James Calder  of Imperial College, London, and Fortius Clinic London. Chair of cross-Sport Working Group of Government and Health Officials. This means that ALL  UK Governments have this information. Also looks as though the advice from Dr Thomas Edwards (see below) has been up-dated too?

Professor Calder is a founding member of UK-based Fortius Clinic, where he works as a consultant orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon. The clinic, the largest group of private sports physicians in Europe, cares for professional athletes across all sports. Several dozen professional athletes a week are referred to Professor Calder. He works with players from Premier League clubs and European giants including Paris Saint-Germain, FC Barcelona and AC Milan. He also helps Olympians, professional ballet dancers and, increasingly, NBA and NFL players.

Then there's this article from The Northern Scot:

www.northern-scot.co.uk/news/national/article/risk-of-covid-transmission-via-shared-sports-gear-likely-to-be-low-study-13087/

Risk of Covid transmission via shared sports gear ‘likely to be low’ – study

---

 By PA News

 Published: 14:31, 10 February 2021

 | Updated: 16:31, 10 February 2021

 

The risk of coronavirus transmission via shared sports equipment is “likely to be low” and less of a risk than player interaction, a new study suggests.

Researchers say the findings are important for both elite athletes and community sports and schools.

A team led by Dr Emily Adams from Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine found that a “rapid loss of viral load on the equipment after a short period of time” made it “unlikely” to be a major transmission risk.

The risk of transmission when we share sports equipment is lower than was once thought and it highlights the importance of promoting other infection control measures in sports Professor James Calder

Dr Thomas Edwards, who led the technical work, said: “The major risk of transmission during team sports is more likely to be during player interaction, either in transport, during play or socially before and after the game, and infection control measures should be focused on these areas.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson previously described a cricket ball as a “natural vector of disease” while defending his decision to ban sport outside elite levels.

But the team found that the material of items including tennis balls, cricket gloves and cricket balls also had a “significant” effect on transfer of the virus.

The researchers said that less virus transferred from “porous materials” such as bovine leather or nylon woven cloth than materials such as plastics.

Professor James Calder from Imperial College and Fortius Clinic London said: “These findings are important for elite athletes but also for community sports and our schools.

“The risk of transmission when we share sports equipment is lower than was once thought and it highlights the importance of promoting other infection control measures in sports and encourages equipment manufacturers to identify surfaces that may be less likely to retain viable virus.”

It is hoped that the findings will help inform policy in sport, directing control measures to other more effective areas.

Andy Harland, professor of sports technology at Loughborough University, said: “Sport plays such an important role in many people’s mental and physical well-being, but has inevitably been interrupted during the coronavirus pandemic.

“The opportunity to engage in research into risk of virus transmission via sports equipment was something we were pleased to support and hope the results can assist sports administrators and individuals to make informed decisions when returning to play.”

A spokesperson for the Lawn Tennis Association said: “We have been aware of preliminary data that suggested sports equipment such as tennis balls presented a low-risk for some time.

“While this study is yet to be peer-reviewed, its findings are encouraging and reinforce our view that tennis is a safe, socially distant sport that can play a role in the nation’s recovery.

“We know tennis provides significant physical and mental health benefits to so many people in communities across the country, and are working closely with Government to make the case for tennis activity to resume as soon as restrictions can be relaxed.”

[Dev]

45 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

I think you're missing my (hypothetical) point, that in all likelihood people on the march will be involved in lower level football and therefore would be putting people at risk if all levels of play were allowed to re-start now.  

And ultimately that their actions do not help the cause or image of football in any way.  So you make representation to the government that football can be trusted to follow the rules and guidance, when evidently it cannot.

Hm! Opinion based upon opinion though?