comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 36 minutes ago
Big rumours football in England returning June 8th. Players to be tested twice a week. We got our football back
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are these big rumours coming from Don? Everything I am hearing is there is not a hope in hell of starting football in early June.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 23 minutes ago
Big rumours football in England returning June 8th. Players to be tested twice a week. We got our football back
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't bloody wait. I can't even have a beer without it as that's what gets me in the mood for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Same. Just want some normality slowly easing back and can’t wait to watch some football again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Who cares that it would unnecessarily risk lives and use up valuable public services and testing capacity. As long as you've got your normality back eh

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 23 minutes ago
Big rumours football in England returning June 8th. Players to be tested twice a week. We got our football back
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't bloody wait. I can't even have a beer without it as that's what gets me in the mood for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Same. Just want some normality slowly easing back and can’t wait to watch some football again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. Who cares that it would unnecessarily risk lives and use up valuable public services and testing capacity. As long as you've got your normality back eh
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh get off you’re bloody high horse. Nobody is saying they don’t care about lives, but at some point people need to move on with life and get the economy rolling. You can’t lock people up and suspend everyday life forever. June 8th is plenty of time still. Can’t wait for the football to come back and get our lives back.

comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 48 minutes ago
Sandy , Liverpool are going to win the title anyway mate. If the season finishes, just award it to them. But the season should resume anyway, so it don’t matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They have to win it Don, not just be handed it. I for one would not recognise then as title winners, if they were just handed it. And if you hand Liverpool the title, then you have to relegate the bottom three with 9/10 games to play, you cannot have different rules in the same league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Don’t agree with it, but you can’t deny they will win the league. Let’s hope it resumes, so that won’t happen.

Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 46 minutes ago
Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's quite a few things worse than someone taking the moral high ground on an online forum.

I just think you're mad if you think it's a good idea to restart sport in a little over a month. It's not just tempting fate, it's bending over and showing it our collective erseholes.

You have to look at these things in terms of potential benefit vs potential cost. I simply don't think the potential "normality" benefit of restarting football in a month's time is worth the potential risk of hundreds of infections, which would quickly multiply to thousands, and then we'd be right back at square one with a new pandemic spike.

It simply isn't the time, yet, to be rushing back into something as unimportant as football for the sake of people's sense of normality (or, God forbid, the other poster's ability to enjoy a facking beer). If ever, EVER there were a time to be OVERLY cautious, it's in the middle of a worldwide virus outbreak.

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 46 minutes ago
Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's quite a few things worse than someone taking the moral high ground on an online forum.

I just think you're mad if you think it's a good idea to restart sport in a little over a month. It's not just tempting fate, it's bending over and showing it our collective erseholes.

You have to look at these things in terms of potential benefit vs potential cost. I simply don't think the potential "normality" benefit of restarting football in a month's time is worth the potential risk of hundreds of infections, which would quickly multiply to thousands, and then we'd be right back at square one with a new pandemic spike.

It simply isn't the time, yet, to be rushing back into something as unimportant as football for the sake of people's sense of normality (or, God forbid, the other poster's ability to enjoy a facking beer). If ever, EVER there were a time to be OVERLY cautious, it's in the middle of a worldwide virus outbreak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good fortune telling there. You should join the circus.

Great rebuttal that

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 46 minutes ago
Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's quite a few things worse than someone taking the moral high ground on an online forum.

I just think you're mad if you think it's a good idea to restart sport in a little over a month. It's not just tempting fate, it's bending over and showing it our collective erseholes.

You have to look at these things in terms of potential benefit vs potential cost. I simply don't think the potential "normality" benefit of restarting football in a month's time is worth the potential risk of hundreds of infections, which would quickly multiply to thousands, and then we'd be right back at square one with a new pandemic spike.

It simply isn't the time, yet, to be rushing back into something as unimportant as football for the sake of people's sense of normality (or, God forbid, the other poster's ability to enjoy a facking beer). If ever, EVER there were a time to be OVERLY cautious, it's in the middle of a worldwide virus outbreak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I must admit I won't be venturing far until the death toll comes down to zero, and there is one in a million chance of me catching it.

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 46 minutes ago
Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's quite a few things worse than someone taking the moral high ground on an online forum.

I just think you're mad if you think it's a good idea to restart sport in a little over a month. It's not just tempting fate, it's bending over and showing it our collective erseholes.

You have to look at these things in terms of potential benefit vs potential cost. I simply don't think the potential "normality" benefit of restarting football in a month's time is worth the potential risk of hundreds of infections, which would quickly multiply to thousands, and then we'd be right back at square one with a new pandemic spike.

It simply isn't the time, yet, to be rushing back into something as unimportant as football for the sake of people's sense of normality (or, God forbid, the other poster's ability to enjoy a facking beer). If ever, EVER there were a time to be OVERLY cautious, it's in the middle of a worldwide virus outbreak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good fortune telling there. You should join the circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sort of reply is that 😂TOOR you’re better than that.

comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 48 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 46 minutes ago
Honestly, nothing worse than that guy on his huge pedestal making out he cares about lives more than you just because you want certain things to come back with the right safety measures. If we can test players and confirm safety, I am 100% for football coming back, if not for peoples sanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's quite a few things worse than someone taking the moral high ground on an online forum.

I just think you're mad if you think it's a good idea to restart sport in a little over a month. It's not just tempting fate, it's bending over and showing it our collective erseholes.

You have to look at these things in terms of potential benefit vs potential cost. I simply don't think the potential "normality" benefit of restarting football in a month's time is worth the potential risk of hundreds of infections, which would quickly multiply to thousands, and then we'd be right back at square one with a new pandemic spike.

It simply isn't the time, yet, to be rushing back into something as unimportant as football for the sake of people's sense of normality (or, God forbid, the other poster's ability to enjoy a facking beer). If ever, EVER there were a time to be OVERLY cautious, it's in the middle of a worldwide virus outbreak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good fortune telling there. You should join the circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What sort of reply is that 😂TOOR you’re better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A normal reply when somebody believes they're telling the future, ie. Now we're past the peak, infections are coming down and yet in a months time the fortune teller above has predicted thousands of infections occurring due to some football matches behind closed doors, with weekly testing and it beginning the peak all over again, which of course is absolute nonsense.

Not sure you've entirely grasped either my post or the situation at large, tbh fella

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Not sure you've entirely grasped either my post or the situation at large, tbh fella
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've grasped it perfectly well thanks. Not sure you realise how nonsensical it sounds. Read it out loud and see how you feel about it then. It's a load nonsense.

Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the powers to be include Johsnon, then I wouldn`t be believing anything he says. He has got pretty well everything wrong since this Virus first started.

The world does have to move on Don, but not just yet. I won`t be going too far until the deaths hit zero, and I have next to no chance of actually catching it. Others may want to take that risk. I certainly won`t be. The bottom line is it has still only been a few weeks of lockdown, surely people can last longer than that without going gaga.

Johnson*

Nothing screams normality to me more than watching footballers in face masks playing in empty stadiums.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on this will be governed by how much the individual is missing watching football.

Personally I'm not missing the misery and anxiety Spurs have served up this season one bit and the last thing I'm interested in is footie behind closed doors in neutral venues.

Whether its finishing this campaign or starting the 20/21 season I'm happy to wait for it to be done properly infront of 60k at the new Lane.

comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on this will be governed by how much the individual is missing watching football.

Personally I'm not missing the misery and anxiety Spurs have served up this season one bit and the last thing I'm interested in is footie behind closed doors in neutral venues.

Whether its finishing this campaign or starting the 20/21 season I'm happy to wait for it to be done properly infront of 60k at the new Lane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeh football behind closed doors is a nonsense. It also is not fair that teams get not to play in front of a home crowd.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 31 minutes ago

You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even know where to start with the strawman arguments in this post.

Since when is it taking the high ground/preaching to suggest that maybe it's a good idea to risk fewer lives instead of more?

"Powers that be" - do you mean football's governing bodies? They're clearly more concerned about revenues. Keeping football shut down is bad for business.

"Listen to the experts" - if you mean the Government, they're not experts in medical/viral science. Lord knows Boris Johnson certainly isn't. Those who are - like Chris Whitty, and Michel D'Hooghe, the chair of FIFA's medical committee - are saying we should be incredibly cautious about lifting lockdown measures. Whitty has said just this morning that a second spike could be worse than the first if we're not careful.

People's mental health is obviously a concern. I'd argue gambling on lifting measures too early and potentially causing a second spike, and therefore longer lockdown again in future, is a bigger mental health challenge.

"The world has to eventually move on" - no sheite. Not sure where you think I've suggested otherwise. I just don't think a month's time counts as "eventually" when all the experts are saying "moving on" basically means accepting that the virus, and social distancing, are part of our lives for the foreseeable. It won't go away just because you want it to, and certainly not in the next month.

Again - to reiterate - my main point is that the potential benefits of restarting football do not outweigh the potential risks. I really don't think that's so hard to grasp.

comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 31 minutes ago

You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even know where to start with the strawman arguments in this post.

Since when is it taking the high ground/preaching to suggest that maybe it's a good idea to risk fewer lives instead of more?

"Powers that be" - do you mean football's governing bodies? They're clearly more concerned about revenues. Keeping football shut down is bad for business.

"Listen to the experts" - if you mean the Government, they're not experts in medical/viral science. Lord knows Boris Johnson certainly isn't. Those who are - like Chris Whitty, and Michel D'Hooghe, the chair of FIFA's medical committee - are saying we should be incredibly cautious about lifting lockdown measures. Whitty has said just this morning that a second spike could be worse than the first if we're not careful.

People's mental health is obviously a concern. I'd argue gambling on lifting measures too early and potentially causing a second spike, and therefore longer lockdown again in future, is a bigger mental health challenge.

"The world has to eventually move on" - no sheite. Not sure where you think I've suggested otherwise. I just don't think a month's time counts as "eventually" when all the experts are saying "moving on" basically means accepting that the virus, and social distancing, are part of our lives for the foreseeable. It won't go away just because you want it to, and certainly not in the next month.

Again - to reiterate - my main point is that the potential benefits of restarting football do not outweigh the potential risks. I really don't think that's so hard to grasp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



I would suggest reading back on these posts in your initial response to my post claiming I don’t care about lives. Nothing of that sort whatsoever. I also am thinking about people’s mental health and well-being. I personally believe football will be a much needed relief and a sense of normality. If it’s safe to do so, I am 100% in agreement with it.

comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing football behind closed doors will not be normal though will it, it won`t help people mentally one iota when it dawns on them how down right awful this will be, in fact there is a possibility it could make them worse, who in their right mind wants to watch football in empty stadiums or on training pitches. VAR almost delivered a knock out punch to football, playing games without fans will almost certainly send it crashing to the floor.

comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● (U3924)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Don_tottenham (U3372)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Amanda Hugginkiss (U11574)
posted 14 minutes ago
Sigh... OK, I'll bite.

Your contention seems to be the fact that I believe I'm "telling the future" which is contradicted by the fact that we are past the [first] peak.

Firstly, I don't believe I'm telling the future. I think that's pretty clear from the number of times I used the word "potentially" in the post you've taken issue with. I believe I'm looking at the potential risk if lockdown measures are lifted too quickly. That's not the same as saying "this will definitely happen in this specific timeframe."

Secondly, yes, we're past the first peak of infections in this country. The reason for this is social distancing and nationwide lockdown. In other words, no-one is going near each other in the whole country unless they can't avoid it, so the virus has (relatively speaking) far less ability to spread. We will only continue to see new infection rates fall if social distancing continues - albeit the idea is to gradually loosen those restrictions at a safe, gradual pace that allows us to keep ahead of the infection rate, as it were.

Point being: the rate of infection correlates with the severity of lockdown/distancing measures. The tighter the lockdown, the lower the transmission rates, and vice versa. Likewise, the looser the lockdown, the higher the transmission rates go. Lockdown needs to be released gradually to ensure that transmission rates don't rise again to a point at which we see a second peak of new infections. Just because we're past the [first] peak doesn't mean we can just lift lockdown now and infection rates will continue to fall. That's not how it works, and if you think it is, then you're wrong.

Point #2 (which I note you haven't actually addressed) is that in a time of global pandemic, it seems sensible to take the lower-risk option at all times to ensure minimal risk of infection/loss of life. I think this is fairly uncontroversial as far as viewpoints go.

Now hosting a football match behind closed doors will involve anywhere from 100 to 500 people being at the stadium, depending on the size of the stadium and depending on whom you believe. Let's assume it's somewhere at the lower end of that scale - say, 200. Not impossible to imagine considering that club staff (playing squads, coaching staff) will account for about 50 on their own. And obviously TV cameras don't operate themselves.

So you've got 200 people in a relatively confined space - 200 people who may be asymptomatic carriers, who may need to be flown into the UK from abroad where infection rates may not be so controlled (this is already happening with players who went back to their home nations before lockdown was announced), who may have large households that may contain other asymptomatic carriers or vulnerable people, and so on.

That's 200 people that are at higher risk of exposure to the virus, who - and this is the key point here - didn't need to be. You can't enforce social distancing when two players go up for a header or mark each other at corners. You can't enforce social distancing when a physio comes on to sort out a player's calf cramp. You can't enforce social distancing when a player breaks a bone or gets a head injury and needs medical attention, potentially involving a trip to hospital for a scan.

The most you can do is ensure the players have regular tests and the staff have lots of PPE - but then, why should footballers/football staff/facking ball boys get tests and PPE when there's still thousands of key workers across the country who can't? That doesn't seem entirely appropriate to me. Maybe you disagree.

This is not the low-risk option, so I refer you back to point #2. In a time of global crisis, we should be taking the lowest-risk option, even if it means being OVER cautious, because the potential risk (i.e. further infections) is FAR more severe than the potential benefit (i.e. people like you and Don get to crack open a beer and watch a game of football).

Perhaps that's clearer to you now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


You can preach all you like and claim the moral high ground like you like, but discussions are being made to restart the season, so clearly the powers that be feel they can achieve this safely, so it doesn’t cause an outbreak like you claim it will. I think I will listen to the experts, rather than Amanda Hugginkiss on Ja606. It’s not about cracking open a beer by the way, it’s to get some normality back in the sense that people’s mental health is also at stake in time’s like this. Football or any sense of normality is a positive thing for people who are going out of their minds in isolation and lockdown. Not me personally, as I’m a key worker so I get out every now and then, but certain people are not taking this lockdown well. Football will provide some positivity to people’s lives. The world has to eventually move on funny enough Amanda, otherwise you won’t even have a country to come out to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing football behind closed doors will not be normal though will it, it won`t help people mentally one iota when it dawns on them how down right awful this will be, in fact there is a possibility it could make them worse, who in their right mind wants to watch football in empty stadiums or on training pitches. VAR almost delivered a knock out punch to football, playing games without fans will almost certainly send it crashing to the floor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


I think any sort of football will help people. It might not be ideal, but people would love to be watching any sort of professional football again.

Remember this nonsense sandy?

"though they mathematically could have stayed up.

Partick Thistle have been relegated from the Championship after Dundee's change to a 'yes' vote passed the plans.

The Glasgow club were two points adrift at the bottom, but had a game in hand over Queen of the South in ninth.

Apparently they have not the money to appeal this shocking decision. This decision is going down a very slippery slope of basically awarding title and relegating sides on a vote.



This surely must never ever be allowed to happen in the English game."



Fud