Parliamentary Petition to allow fans back into grounds

[GBJ]

Don't they classify anyone over 60 vulnerable, whether they have any other medical conditions or not. If they haven't the death rate is very low. For under 60 only medical problems make them vulnerable. Maybe a better idea than the current lockdown would be to furlough those working vulnerable with existing known medical problems and let the remainder carry on as pre virus normal.

Sounds about right... if you’re over 60, then you’re too vulnerable for this virus, but you’re perfectly able to work 40+ hours every week.

Yes the death rate is low, and that’s because certain restrictions and rules were put into place. Without them, the infection rate would have been higher, meaning the possibility/probability of more vulnerable people catching the virus - and subsequently dying - would also have been higher.

FWIW I think the government made a complete balls up of the first lockdown, and have continued in that vain ever since. But that’s not to say it couldn’t have been worse, and could still get worse.

Furloughing the working vulnerable only solves half of the issue. How many of them live with someone who isn’t vulnerable, that still goes out to work, socialise etc. If 25% of the country is vulnerable, and they each live with one other person, that’s 50% of the country you could be talking about.

I’m not suggesting we carry on the way we are indefinitely, but neither am I advocating that we throw caution to the wind and see what happens.

As always, people see this as a black and white issue, but in reality there are innumerable grey areas which have been overlooked and forgotten.

All I hear from certain circles, is this idea of protecting the vulnerable, and letting the rest of us live our lives. And to this day, I haven’t seen or heard one actual credible way that could be done. It’s just a soundbyte.

 

[londonblue]

You said there was a difference and the O2 has more space, implying it’s less of a risk than football. I’m simply disagreeing with that by pointing out the fact that nearly 5,000 people will be wanting to use an underground station at the same time. I’m not asking you to justify it.

Stop shifting the argument.

 

[londonblue]

Maybe, maybe not but they would be able to choose when and why and take precautions, masks etc, as they see fit.

You do know that masks only stop you passing on the virus, they don't stop you catching it don't you?

Are you really saying that around 25% of the population (who would be considered vulnerable - assuming that figure is correct) should stay at home just so you can go and watch a football match?

 

[londonblue]

Yes the virus can cause serious problems for the vulnerable and they should be protected, but not by shutting down the country. They can choose by themselves to self isolate. There are probably more people at risk of serious medical problems due to lack of tests/treatments caused by hospital and clinic shutdowns.

My sister had cancer and is still being looked after. None of her appointments/treatments have been stopped. She's continued to attend appointments over the phone and blood tests at the hospital. None of that "critical care" (for want of a better expression) is stopping, so don't use that as an argument.

 

[londonblue]

Sounds about right... if you’re over 60, then you’re too vulnerable for this virus, but you’re perfectly able to work 40+ hours every week.

Yes the death rate is low, and that’s because certain restrictions and rules were put into place. Without them, the infection rate would have been higher, meaning the possibility/probability of more vulnerable people catching the virus - and subsequently dying - would also have been higher.

FWIW I think the government made a complete balls up of the first lockdown, and have continued in that vain ever since. But that’s not to say it couldn’t have been worse, and could still get worse.

Furloughing the working vulnerable only solves have of the issue. How many of them live with someone who isn’t vulnerable, that still goes out to work, socialise etc. If 25% of the country is vulnerable, and they each live with one other person, that’s 50% of the country you could be talking about.

I’m not suggesting we carry on the way we are indefinitely, but neither am I advocating that we throw caution to the wind and see what happens.

As always, people see this as a black and white issue, but in reality there are innumerable grey areas which have been overlooked and forgotten.

All I hear from certain circles, is this idea of protecting the vulnerable, and letting the rest of us live our lives. And to this day, I haven’t seen or heard one actual credible way that could be done. It’s just a soundbyte.

It's amazing isn't it? The government (who I have no time for BTW) put in restrictions that work. and then people use the fact that they worked and death/infection rates are low as an argument for why we don't need restrictions!

 

[Chalky]

My sister had cancer and is still being looked after. None of her appointments/treatments have been stopped. She's continued to attend appointments over the phone and blood tests at the hospital. None of that "critical care" (for want of a better expression) is stopping, so don't use that as an argument.

He has every bloody right to use that argument. Because it is a real scenario that is happening, don't just decide for your own agenda what facts you want said and what you don't what said.

Let's take a look at some of the recent headlines shall we?

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

Scientists warn of the "devastating" effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus lockdowns 'may kill MORE than herd immunity'

An Edinburgh University study examined various lockdown-style scenarios and found that while they might protect hospitals, they could also prolong the pandemic and prevent the build-up of herd immunity.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Coronavirus: Contact-tracing app has only sent one alert about an outbreak in a venue

The absence of such alerts has raised questions as the mass closures of pubs and bars is expected in parts of the country.

news.sky.com

Imagine thinking 6,000 scientists are all wrong apart from the select few hired from the government. Imagine killing the hospitality industry because only one outbreak appeared on the tracing app.

Imagine pulling kids out of school at the most important part of their development over a virus that has an average age of death of 82.

Stop being naive and kicking the can further down the road. The virus is an endemic, it is never going to go away. History tells us a vaccine may never happen, and even it does its months away, and even then it may not be effective.

Oh, you just said in your post above me that the restrictions work

The worrying statistics which show why local lockdowns are 'not working'

It comes after the UK’s infection rate almost doubled in a week

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

....You sure about that one, chief?

 

[jackj13]

My sister had cancer and is still being looked after. None of her appointments/treatments have been stopped. She's continued to attend appointments over the phone and blood tests at the hospital. None of that "critical care" (for want of a better expression) is stopping, so don't use that as an argument.

Then I have to say your sister is very lucky. I know people personally who's treatment has been delayed because of Covid and there is the very real possibility of it spreading before they have their operation carried out.

 

[GBJ]

You do know that masks only stop you passing on the virus, they don't stop you catching it don't you?

Are you really saying that around 25% of the population (who would be considered vulnerable - assuming that figure is correct) should stay at home just so you can go and watch a football match?

There’s more to it than just the vulnerable staying indoors though. The majority of those people still work & still pay taxes.

That is the sole reason why the Government - any Goverment - will never introduce those rules & guidance.

Look how bad the economy is currently and then imagine telling 25% of the population (if that figure is correct, I’m not totally convinced), that they need to stay at home.

IMO, there’s a common misconception that the “vulnerable” group, is made up of old codgers & coffin dodgers, who have nothing better to do other than ambling around town, spending their pension. But this list below clearly indicates that there are millions of people who fall into that vulnerable group (and millions more who are connected to someone on that list).

There are even some who aren’t aware that they fall onto that list, and yet they are the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas.

This page has been removed

www.nhs.uk

 

[Leigh_Seasider]

Back to the subject, I genuinely don’t know why crowds are allowed to non league games and not league 2/league 1 games. Even if it was a few hundred fans per game, that’s puzzling to me I must admit. Just been watching a piece on Wuhan and they’re pretty much back to “normal” (save for masks/distancing etc. which are just part of life now). They attribute that to successful testing and adherence to Govt measures.

 

[londonblue]

He has every bloody right to use that argument. Because it is a real scenario that is happening, don't just decide for your own agenda what facts you want said and what you don't what said.

Let's take a look at some of the recent headlines shall we?

Coronavirus: Health experts join global anti-lockdown movement

Scientists warn of the "devastating" effect of Covid-19 policies, calling for a return to normal for healthy people.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus lockdowns 'may kill MORE than herd immunity'

An Edinburgh University study examined various lockdown-style scenarios and found that while they might protect hospitals, they could also prolong the pandemic and prevent the build-up of herd immunity.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Coronavirus: Contact-tracing app has only sent one alert about an outbreak in a venue

The absence of such alerts has raised questions as the mass closures of pubs and bars is expected in parts of the country.

news.sky.com

Imagine thinking 6,000 scientists are all wrong apart from the select few hired from the government. Imagine killing the hospitality industry because only one outbreak appeared on the tracing app.

Imagine pulling kids out of school at the most important part of their development over a virus that has an average age of death of 82.

Stop being naive and kicking the can further down the road. The virus is an endemic, it is never going to go away. History tells us a vaccine may never happen, and even it does its months away, and even then it may not be effective.

Oh, you just said in your post above me that the restrictions work

The worrying statistics which show why local lockdowns are 'not working'

It comes after the UK’s infection rate almost doubled in a week

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

....You sure about that one, chief?

Yep, totally sure. If people need to be seen they will. The hospitals just have to be creative in how they do it. More to the point, let's assume I'm wrong. Is the fact that hospitals are not coping and cutting some treatments good or bad for the argument that more people should be able to attend entertainment events of one kind or another, and thus prolonging the issue?

However, it's irrelevant really since it's just a way of diverting the conversation.

The fact is that some people want around 1/4 of the population to stay indoors or run the risk of catching something for the sake of a football match.

I would love to be back watching live football (or at least I like the idea, watching us lose every week isn't really that appealing) but I'm not prepared to do so at the expense of other peoples' physical (and mental) wellbeing.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

You do know that masks only stop you passing on the virus, they don't stop you catching it don't you?

Are you really saying that around 25% of the population (who would be considered vulnerable - assuming that figure is correct) should stay at home just so you can go and watch a football match?

Where have you got this 25% figure from? The risk to healthy working-age people is virtually zero, as borne out by the tiny numbers of deaths among under-60s without serious underlying conditions. My mum is classed as 'vulnerable' (not high-risk/shielding but the category below) as she's 70 and has a kidney condition but has continued working except during the first month of lockdown. I'm certainly not saying people should stay at home so I can go to a football match, I'm saying people should have the choice.

Most of these new 'cases' (positive tests) that are being detected don't even have symptoms!

 

[londonblue]

Then I have to say your sister is very lucky. I know people personally who's treatment has been delayed because of Covid and there is the very real possibility of it spreading before they have their operation carried out.

Actually, she's not lucky. She's being treated at a hospital that is under a lot of pressure and is getting a lot of bad publicity. It just happens that the publicity isn't 100% accurate. Who'd-a-thunk-it!

 

[londonblue]

Where have you got this 25% figure from? The risk to healthy working-age people is virtually zero, as borne out by the tiny numbers of deaths among under-60s without serious underlying conditions. My mum is classed as 'vulnerable' (not high-risk/shielding but the category below) as she's 70 and has a kidney condition but has continued working except during the first month of lockdown. I'm certainly not saying people should stay at home so I can go to a football match, I'm saying people should have the choice.

Most of these new 'cases' (positive tests) that are being detected don't even have symptoms!

As I said, I'm not sure that's accurate. However given the age distribution of our population, and then all the younger people that have underlying health conditions such as diabetes etc then you can make a guess that it might be relatively accurate.

However, look at this. It's a graph of age against risk. It's not very granular, but it's the best I can find:

Click here

The risk for someone (in England) between the ages of 45 and 64 (working ages) is low, but also (more importantly) nearly 17 times more likely than someone younger. I'd like to see a more granular graph though...

 

[dcblue]

Yep, totally sure. If people need to be seen they will. The hospitals just have to be creative in how they do it. More to the point, let's assume I'm wrong. Is the fact that hospitals are not coping and cutting some treatments good or bad for the argument that more people should be able to attend entertainment events of one kind or another?

However, it's irrelevant really since it's just a way of diverting the conversation.

The fact is that some people want around 1/4 of the population to stay indoors or run the risk of catching something for the sake of a football match.

I would love to be back watching live football (or at least I like the idea, watching us lose every week isn't really that appealing) but I'm not prepared to do so at the expense of other peoples' physical (and mental) wellbeing.

Not just for a football match. All the leisure and sporting events should be opening up and of that 25% they consider vulnerable, me included, the % that will be seriously ill is very low. As for mental well being I don't think the current restrictions are doing much for that according to figures.

 

[londonblue]

Not just for a football match. All the leisure and sporting events should be opening up and of that 25% they consider vulnerable, me included, the % that will be seriously ill is very low. As for mental well being I don't think the current restrictions are doing much for that according to figures.

Indeed, so let's all stay in, and get it over and done with. Otherwise you're advocating vulnerable people stay indoors for much much longer whilst you go off to watch football.

 

[southendkid]

Given that hospital admissions are spiking to the point that hospitals in the North are on track to be at capacity within a week or two and they're talking about closing pubs and restaurants in the North as a result it would be a massive PR own goal if at the same time Boris announced fans in the south can start going to matches. I can't see this even being considered until cases start dropping again.

 

[Jay_SUFC]

Commetators were moaning at the England game last night, saying you could easily social distance at Wembley, yet giving no thought to how you would travel to and from the game, whilst maintaining social distancing!!

 

[Stourport Shrimper]

Indeed, so let's all stay in, and get it over and done with. Otherwise you're advocating vulnerable people stay indoors for much much longer whilst you go off to watch football.

So your plan is to either all stay in or just some stay in? Sounds like the latter would be more economically sensible. And we don't get it over and done with by all staying in - all that happens is we further flatten the curve and prolong the reaching of population immunity. To all intents and purposes this death pandemic is now over in Sweden. the only country that has truly followed the science and not politicised this

 

[kaymac]

This is what the Swedish people are being told...

“To mitigate the spread of Covid-19, everyone is advised to avoid social events, to keep a safe distance to others, and to stay at home if they have any symptoms”

Doesn’t quite tie-in with attending football matches or the like

 

[Mad Cyril]

This is what the Swedish people are being told...

“To mitigate the spread of Covid-19, everyone is advised to avoid social events, to keep a safe distance to others, and to stay at home if they have any symptoms”

Doesn’t quite tie-in with attending football matches or the like

Swedes are probably used to watching Southend on iFollow.