Positives tests among Premier League players/staff

[dsr]

The problem is that the virus is highly transmissible. Football is a contact sport. The virus spreads when human beings come into contact with one another. It is very difficult to play football and for players not to come into contact with each each other.
https://www.uchealth.org/today/viruses- ... -fight-it/

At the current time there is no guarantee that players will not become infected. All that can be done is to try to identify those with the virus and quarantine them so that they will not spread it. This is not easily done.

If failure to quarantine those infected occurs, other players will become infected. There will be a threshold of infections at which the authorities will end the season prematurely.

If the clubs successfully quarantine those infected then perhaps a few fixtures will need to be postponed but eventually the season will end. A significant degree of flexibility will need to be imposed with regards to rescheduling fixtures. Also teams may have to accept that they may need to play some matches 'under strength'. The end date of the season will not be able to be specified.

Underlying all of this is the danger that a player, member of staff or family member could catch the virus and go on to the critical stage with permanent health implications or even fatality.

The main question that I would ask is - 'is it all worth it or would it be better to wait a few months'?

It's the age old question - what is acceptable risk? The easy answer is that no risk is acceptable, and football should stop for evermore because it can never be zero risk. But I doubt that anyone on here would support that idea.

So what is acceptable? At present, approximately 60 men aged between 20 and 34 have died with coronavirus in this country. Most of them had serious underlying illnesses, and many of the rest caught it in hospital one way or another. But yes, 60 men died. About 1 in 100,000. How does that translate into footballers? Each player may have, perhaps, a 1 in a million chance of dying. Plus another fractional chance of career threatening illness.

The threat to families can be put aside, Premier League footballers can easily afford to separate from their families for 6 weeks if they are worried.

How much should those chances be reduced before it is acceptable? And how can we assess it?

[tiger76]

How are the Germans managing to get through their fixtures?

This will be their 2nd weekend back and there hasn't been any major problems that i'm aware of.

I'm stunned that Hull have reported 2 positive tests i tell thee,how convenient when they're trying to get the season null and voided.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52789239

It is funny how virtually all the positive results involve teams marooned in relegation battles, Amazing coincidence that isn't it.

So over a 1,000 tests conducted in the Championship and a mere 2 return positive,i'd say that's a decent ratio to consider a restart.

[Spijed]

The threat to families can be put aside, Premier League footballers can easily afford to separate from their families for 6 weeks if they are worried.

They are separated for a number of weeks during major tournaments (World Cup) and the England cricket team spends a number of weeks away when they play for the Ashes in Australia.

A bit of a flimsy excuse.

[tiger76]

They are separated for a number of weeks during major tournaments (World Cup) and the England cricket team spends a number of weeks away when they play for the Ashes in Australia.

A bit of a flimsy excuse.

Excuses are wearing thin among the bottom 6 now,it's clear they'll use anything they can to get the season called off.

If the season is killed stone dead,what will be different in August so we can restart?

I can't see a dramatic change happening in the space of a couple of months,so we'll face the same scenario then as we do now.

[UnderSeige]

It's the age old question - what is acceptable risk? The easy answer is that no risk is acceptable, and football should stop for evermore because it can never be zero risk. But I doubt that anyone on here would support that idea.

So what is acceptable? At present, approximately 60 men aged between 20 and 34 have died with coronavirus in this country. Most of them had serious underlying illnesses, and many of the rest caught it in hospital one way or another. But yes, 60 men died. About 1 in 100,000. How does that translate into footballers? Each player may have, perhaps, a 1 in a million chance of dying. Plus another fractional chance of career threatening illness.

The threat to families can be put aside, Premier League footballers can easily afford to separate from their families for 6 weeks if they are worried.

How much should those chances be reduced before it is acceptable? And how can we assess it?

"Young marathon runner struck down by coronavirus says getting virus is like 'being hit by a bus'". https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/tv ... b-17964350

"Francisco Garcia death: Spanish football coach dies from coronavirus aged 21." https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 4566.html

"Juventus star Paulo Dybala revealed Friday how he "struggled to breathe" after contracting coronavirus." https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/foot ... -nightmare

"Coronavirus in Italy: Alessandro Favalli describes 'fever, headache, eyes burning'" https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51961429

"COVID-19-associated cardiac injury and its long-term consequences in athletes could be significantly underestimated" https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/adva ... 48/5841105

"Dismissing Covid-19 as something that only endangers those who were going to die soon anyway doesn’t make a lot of statistical sense. Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... fatalities

Risk is not the problem. The highly contagious virus is the problem. If 'human being 1' - with the virus comes into contact with 'human being 2' the virus will spread to 'human being 2' because there is no immunity.

The threat to families cannot be put aside. It is unlikely that the whole premier league (players and staff) will accept being in some sort of quarantine from their families for the 'undetermined period' that it will take to finish the season. It is not realistic to think that they would accept that. They would also not be contractually obliged to do so.

"You are not invincible." That was the stark warning to younger people earlier this month from Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director general of the World Health Organization. He didn't mince his words. "This virus could put you in hospital for weeks, or even kill you… people under 50 make up a significant proportion of patients requiring hospitalisation," he added. In the UK, two teenagers have been reported to have died after succumbing to coronavirus - one was 19 and the other 13, with no known underlying health issues.. A doctor explains that youthful immune systems can go into overdrive when fighting COVID-19 and this can prove fatal". https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featu ... 26169.html

A few real stats with links:

• Nearly 30% of US coronavirus cases have been among people 20-44 years old, the CDC says — showing that young people are getting sick, too. https://www.businessinsider.com/30-perc ... ?r=US&IR=T

• "In Italy, we're seeing a lot of younger adults get very sick," Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children's Hospital and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told NBC News. He said that while it's too soon to analyze how the virus will affect the majority of Americans, no matter their age, it's possible people in their 20s and 30s may develop severe illness. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... s-n1160416

• In Spain, out of 1,285 cases for people 20 to 29, 183 of them have been hospitalised, a 14 percent rate; eight have ended up in intensive care, a 0.6 percent rate, and four people in this age range have died, a 0.3 percent fatality rate.
  The CDC covers a huge 20-44 age range in its data, but here’s what we know about that entire group: 14.3 percent hospitalized, 2 percent in the ICU, and 0.1 percent fatality rate. https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/ ... ths-by-age

• In Spain, out of 5,127 cases from this cohort, 1,028 people have been hospitalized, a 20 percent rate; 55 went to the ICU, a 1.1 percent rate; and 12 people ages 30 to 49 have died, a 0.2 percent fatality rate.

• Australians in their 20s have more confirmed cases of coronavirus than any other age group. Some 11.3% of Covid-19 cases are among people aged 25 to 29 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -age-group

[Spijed]

Someone posted a few days back that there was some 'light at the end of the tunnel'. Can't see it from my perspective though I would love to be proved wrong. Just so many obstacles to overcome especially within a limited time frame.

But how come all other leagues are managing across Europe despite players being in full contact with each other?

A packed penalty area in Germany or Spain is as likely to spread infection as it is in England, yet they are getting on with things rather than having a good moan.

[UnderSeige]

They are separated for a number of weeks during major tournaments (World Cup) and the England cricket team spends a number of weeks away when they play for the Ashes in Australia.

A bit of a flimsy excuse.

The threat to families cannot be put aside. It is unlikely that the whole premier league (players and staff) will accept being in some sort of quarantine from their families for the 'undetermined period' that it will take to finish the season. It is not realistic to think that they would accept that. They would also not be contractually obliged to do so.

[UnderSeige]

But how come all other leagues are managing across Europe despite players being in full contact with each other?

A packed penalty area in Germany or Spain is as likely to spread infection as it is in England, yet they are getting on with things rather than having a good moan.

All other leagues?

The French league is cancelled. Germany has just started. One of the second tier clubs is now in isolation. I don't know of any other European leagues currently in action.

Fixture and squad flexibility along with scrupulous health measures and an 'indeterminate season end date' might get us through the season with football that is a pale shadow of the real thing.

[UnderSeige]

All other leagues?

The French league is cancelled. Germany has just started. One of the second tier clubs is now in isolation. I don't know of any other European leagues currently in action.

Fixture and squad flexibility along with scrupulous health measures and an 'indeterminate season end date' might get us through the season with football that is a pale shadow of the real thing.

In addition to my previous post I think that it is worth a mention that Germany has done a lot better at handling the virus than the UK. It is likely that their health measures are meticulous. They are in a better position to gradually ease lockdown and restart football (at least for the summer).

South Korea, the other major country to restart have done even better.
"South Korea is well aware that it is blazing a trail for nations returning to normality after the coronavirus shutdown...Players and staff will have their temperatures checked when they enter the stadium, even though they have all been tested for the virus...about 1,100 players and coaches and team staff members were tested and fortunately everyone came back negative.”

If any players or staff test positive for COVID-19 during the remainder of the season, their team will be suspended from competition for two weeks.The league is passing on the lessons they have learned to other professional leagues around the world through their safety manual, Lee said...The K League is hoping fans will be able to return to stadiums before too long".
https://www.reuters.com/article/health- ... SL4N2CO4MQ

The current official statistics show:
Germany (Population 83,783,942): Total Cases -180,219 | Total Deaths -- 8,371 | Cases per million of population- 2,152
S Korea - (Population 51,640,000 : Total Cases ---11,190 | Total Deaths -----266 | Cases per million of population---- 218
UK ------ (Population 67,886,011) : Total Cases -259,559 | Total Deaths -36,793 | Cases per million of population-3,826
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

The daily German 'New Cases' is down to 233. South Korea's was just 25 today whilst the UK daily new cases is still somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500.

The UK needs to learn from these countries both for football and easing the economy in general

[Spijed]

In addition to my previous post I think that it is worth a mention that Germany has done a lot better at handling the virus than the UK. It is likely that their health measures are meticulous. They are in a better position to gradually ease lockdown and restart football (at least for the summer).

South Korea, the other major country to restart have done even better.
"South Korea is well aware that it is blazing a trail for nations returning to normality after the coronavirus shutdown...Players and staff will have their temperatures checked when they enter the stadium, even though they have all been tested for the virus...about 1,100 players and coaches and team staff members were tested and fortunately everyone came back negative.”

If any players or staff test positive for COVID-19 during the remainder of the season, their team will be suspended from competition for two weeks.The league is passing on the lessons they have learned to other professional leagues around the world through their safety manual, Lee said...The K League is hoping fans will be able to return to stadiums before too long".
https://www.reuters.com/article/health- ... SL4N2CO4MQ

The current official statistics show:
Germany (Population 83,783,942): Total Cases -180,219 | Total Deaths -- 8,371 | Cases per million of population- 2,152
S Korea - (Population 51,640,000 : Total Cases ---11,190 | Total Deaths -----266 | Cases per million of population---- 218
UK ------ (Population 67,886,011) : Total Cases -259,559 | Total Deaths -36,793 | Cases per million of population-3,826
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

The daily German 'New Cases' is down to 233. South Korea's was just 25 today whilst the UK daily new cases is still somewhere between 2,500 and 3,500.

The UK needs to learn from these countries both for football and easing the economy in general

Regardless of testing, the risk factor will be the same in any country where players are pushing and shoving in the penalty box.

Germany recorded 10 positive tests out of 1700. We've recorded 8 so far.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22G1P5

[UnderSeige]

Regardless of testing, the risk factor will be the same in any country where players are pushing and shoving in the penalty box.

Germany recorded 10 positive tests out of 1700. We've recorded 8 so far.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN22G1P5

No it won't! If more people are getting the virus in the UK in comparison with the other countries then it will transpire that more footballers are likely to test positive in the UK. The virus will only be transmitted if a player is positive. More positives to start with = more transmissions.

The Korean official stats show only 25 new positive cases in the whole country today. They have got things under control for now. No Korean players have tested positive yet.

Germany are not as competent as Korea but have a much better record than UK. Even in Germany a number of players have tested positive. The second division has already had a fixture disruption. With the UK having a worst record of control than Germany who knows what will happen when players start 'contact training' and the season kicks off again?

Bundesliga
The link that you have added is three weeks old. Germany's 10 positive players have been added to since then.

• 10/05/20 "Coronavirus: Dynamo Dresden’s entire squad placed in isolation just a week before Bundesliga restart"https://talksport.com/football/704124/c ... a-restart/

• 14/05/20 Borussia Dortmund managing director Carsten Cramer says a player testing positive for the novel coronavirus will not be a catastrophe for the Bundesliga, which is set to resume this weekend after a two-month suspension.https://www.firstpost.com/sports/bundes ... 65971.html

• 16/05/20 Coronavirus: Werder player in quarantine a day before Bundesliga return. https://sportstar.thehindu.com/football ... 598850.ece

• 21/05/20 Another Dynamo Dresden player tests positive for COVID-19. https://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/2 ... tory.shtml

• 21/05/20 Dynamo Dresden return two more positive coronavirus tests

Premiership
There are also more than eight Premiership players. The eight are the one's that have occurred in the last week.

• Chelsea Callum Hudson-Odoi

• Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy

• Five Bournemouth staff members, including goalkeeper Artur Boruc. One more today

• Norwich defender Sean Raggett, currently on loan at Portsmouth, also tested positive alongside fellow Pompey players James Bolton and Andy Cannon.

• Premier League's coronavirus tests only return six positives out of 748 - but three are at one club

• Premier League confirms two more coronavirus cases as Bournemouth reveal player has tested positive

• "On Friday March 13, Everton announced that their squad was in self-isolation after a player reported symptoms consistent with those of coronavirus".

• Brendan Rodgers indicated that a number of Leicester City players had shown "symptoms and signs" of coronavirus, with those concerned entering a period of self-isolation.

• Coronavirus: Watford player and two staff test positive

• Adrian Mariappa: Watford defender reveals positive coronavirus test

• Two more Watford players enter self-isolation after family members test positive for coronavirus

https://www.goal.com/en/news/coronaviru ... nt2pyru972

K League
None
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-how-m ... a-53328538

[dsr]

The threat to families cannot be put aside. It is unlikely that the whole premier league (players and staff) will accept being in some sort of quarantine from their families for the 'undetermined period' that it will take to finish the season. It is not realistic to think that they would accept that. They would also not be contractually obliged to do so.

You have lots of good arguments for abandoning football until coronavirus is eliminated from the earth. Not so good for arguing that we should start in August rather than June, though.

I don't think the Spanish player who dies of leukaemia is your best example, though. Leukaemia is pretty dangerous anyway. Worse, as a general rule, than coronavirus.

But why wouldn't players be willing to isolate? They will get paid something like £300,000 on average for six weeks, which is not bad money; more than an oil rigger, or a soldier, or a seaman, for example. If they are given the choice of playing and going home as normal, or playing and isolating, or not playing at all and going on government furlough, then they have plenty of valid choices and don't need any more options. The option of "letting coronavirus have no impact on footballers whatsoever" isn't available.

As I have said before, if the footballers as a group are worried about the health impact of coronavirus, they have only two sensible options. 1 - take the risk and play; 2 - don't take the risk, don't play, don't get paid. The reason this lot is making all the long drawn out discussion is because the footballers, almost uniquely among worldwide professional sportsmen, believe that the option of "don't play but get paid in full" is a valid option.

[tiger76]

You have lots of good arguments for abandoning football until coronavirus is eliminated from the earth. Not so good for arguing that we should start in August rather than June, though.

I don't think the Spanish player who dies of leukaemia is your best example, though. Leukaemia is pretty dangerous anyway. Worse, as a general rule, than coronavirus.

But why wouldn't players be willing to isolate? They will get paid something like £300,000 on average for six weeks, which is not bad money; more than an oil rigger, or a soldier, or a seaman, for example. If they are given the choice of playing and going home as normal, or playing and isolating, or not playing at all and going on government furlough, then they have plenty of valid choices and don't need any more options. The option of "letting coronavirus have no impact on footballers whatsoever" isn't available.

As I have said before, if the footballers as a group are worried about the health impact of coronavirus, they have only two sensible options. 1 - take the risk and play; 2 - don't take the risk, don't play, don't get paid. The reason this lot is making all the long drawn out discussion is because the footballers, almost uniquely among worldwide professional sportsmen, believe that the option of "don't play but get paid in full" is
a valid option.

I'd wager a good wedge that the Liverpool players would happily isolate for 5-6 weeks if they had to,they're on the verge of history.

It could be a pure coincidence but it appears to be the same few clubs offering excuses why the season can't conclude. Now i don't have a crystal ball,but i genuinely don't see what's going to have drastically changed by August,so if they can play in August they can play in June/July.

As you rightly point out if they really don't want to play,and BAME players might be especially wary then the furlough scheme is an option to them,given their generous salaries i'm sure they can manage for a few months.

[UnderSeige]

You have lots of good arguments for abandoning football until coronavirus is eliminated from the earth. Not so good for arguing that we should start in August rather than June, though.

I don't think the Spanish player who dies of leukaemia is your best example, though. Leukaemia is pretty dangerous anyway. Worse, as a general rule, than coronavirus.

But why wouldn't players be willing to isolate? They will get paid something like £300,000 on average for six weeks, which is not bad money; more than an oil rigger, or a soldier, or seamen, for example. If they are given the choice of playing and going home as normal, or playing and isolating, or not playing at all and going on government furlough, then they have plenty of valid choices and don't need any more options. The option of "letting coronavirus have no impact on footballers whatsoever" isn't available.

As I have said before, if the footballers as a group are worried about the health impact of coronavirus, they have only two sensible options. 1 - take the risk and play; 2 - don't take the risk, don't play, don't get paid. The reason this lot is making all the long drawn out discussion is because the footballers, almost uniquely among worldwide professional sportsmen, believe that the option of "don't play but get paid in full" is a valid option.

I am not arguing that we should start in August or June. Rather that we should not restart until we have the virus under control. Take the Korea example. There is no vaccine yet they have already restarted behind closed doors (before Germany). The K league has had zero positive test cases to the Covid-19. Their debate has now moved on to 'when to allow the fans back into the stadiums'. Their economy has started to get back to some kind of normal. Why - because they have got the virus under control. The entire country had only 25 new cases yesterday (see my links in previous posts).

In my opinion (and I am not claiming to be right - just an opinion) the UK is moving a bit too quickly out of lockdown. I would like to see the UK getting back to 'some kind of normal as quickly as possible' and I believe that we can do it before a vaccine. It would involve track and trace; mask wearing; antigen and antibody testing; and everyone co-operating. See Korea, New Zealend, Norway, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong. Australia etc. A number of countries with diverse cultural differences. They have all done it.

I don't want to see my country going in and out of lockdown, second waves of the virus and such for the next few months. We need to sort the situation out.

Also, we may only be 4 or 5 months away from millions of vaccines being available.

Why wouldn't players be willing to isolate?
I cannot realistically see all players quarantining themselves from their families for an undetermined period. Neither can Clubs enforce this in a global pandemic. Footballers are not riggers, soldiers, or a seaman. They have a very specific and rare skill set that is in extremely high demand.

Clubs cannot stop their pay or put them on furlough. They will have very specific contracts. If the country managed to get the virus under control and the PFA/Premier league were to bring in a 'crack medical team' to ensure player safety (See Stan Collymore link in my previous posting) then players would not need to isolate from families and clubs would have redress to enforce contractual obligations.

Also just think about the argument of 'forcing players to play or docking their wages'. It is nonsense! If players are forced into playing against their will it is likely to effect their performance on the 'field of play'. Players need to be highly motivated, eager to get out there and win the match. Highly competitive using their skill sets to their best abilities. They don't need to be in a situation in which their employment is under threat and worried about their families.

I don't think the Spanish player who dies of leukaemia is your best example, though.
Perhaps not but I have afforded plenty of other examples and quotes.

[dsr]

I am not arguing that we should start in August or June. Rather that we should not restart until we have the virus under control. Take the Korea example. There is no vaccine yet they have already restarted behind closed doors (before Germany). The K league has had zero positive test cases to the Covid-19. Their debate has now moved on to 'when to allow the fans back into the stadiums'. Their economy has started to get back to some kind of normal. Why - because they have got the virus under control. The entire country had only 25 new cases yesterday (see my links in previous posts).

In my opinion (and I am not claiming to be right - just an opinion) the UK is moving a bit too quickly out of lockdown. I would like to see the UK getting back to 'some kind of normal as quickly as possible' and I believe that we can do it before a vaccine. It would involve track and trace; mask wearing; antigen and antibody testing; and everyone co-operating. See Korea, New Zealend, Norway, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong. Australia etc. A number of countries with diverse cultural differences. They have all done it.

I don't want to see my country going in and out of lockdown, second waves of the virus and such for the next few months. We need to sort the situation out.

Also, we may only be 4 or 5 months away from millions of vaccines being available.

Why wouldn't players be willing to isolate?
I cannot realistically see all players quarantining themselves from their families for an undetermined period. Neither can Clubs enforce this in a global pandemic. Footballers are not riggers, soldiers, or a seaman. They have a very specific and rare skill set that is in extremely high demand.

Clubs cannot stop their pay or put them on furlough. They will have very specific contracts. If the country managed to get the virus under control and the PFA/Premier league were to bring in a 'crack medical team' to ensure player safety (See Stan Collymore link in my previous posting) then players would not need to isolate from families and clubs would have redress to enforce contractual obligations.

Also just think about the argument of 'forcing players to play or docking their wages'. It is nonsense! If players are forced into playing against their will it is likely to effect their performance on the 'field of play'. Players need to be highly motivated, eager to get out there and win the match. Highly competitive using their skill sets to their best abilities. They don't need to be in a situation in which their employment is under threat and worried about their families.

I don't think the Spanish player who dies of leukaemia is your best example, though.
Perhaps not but I have afforded plenty of other examples and quotes.

From now to the end of the season isn't an indeterminate period. They know how long it will be. The season is expected to last 6 weeks; it's not inhumane to ask footballers to separate from their families for 6 weeks. If it was, they would never be able to play a World Cup, would they.

It is irrelevant what players contracts say. If clubs have no money to pay them, they won't get paid. It doesn't matter how much water the law says you should have out of that empty bucket. If the bucket is empty, you don't get water from it.

[UnderSeige]

From now to the end of the season isn't an indeterminate period. They know how long it will be. The season is expected to last 6 weeks; it's not inhumane to ask footballers to separate from their families for 6 weeks. If it was, they would never be able to play a World Cup, would they.

It is irrelevant what players contracts say. If clubs have no money to pay them, they won't get paid. It doesn't matter how much water the law says you should have out of that empty bucket. If the bucket is empty, you don't get water from it.

From now to the end of the season is an indeterminate period. We don't even know when and if the season will start yet. Also it only takes one positive coronavirus test to disrupt the fixtures. In the last week we have had 8 positive tests. If this was to happen once the season gets underway several fixtures will be postponed to a later date.

The TV companies are not going to like this state of affairs. The plug might eventually be pulled on the season due to the frustration of matches that keep getting postponed.

The question is not whether it is 'inhumane'. It is whether enough of them will agree to it. They probably won't. If they are frogmarched into games they won't be motivated to perform to their best potential. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink - especially with an empty bucket.

Footballers will be 'preferential creditors' in the case of a club 'winding up' (Insolvency Act 1986). The clubs assets would be sold and the 'preferential creditors' paid off first.

My suggestion (the Korean route) would, in my opinion, make it less likely for clubs (and other companies for that matter) to end up in liquidation. If we have to go into a second lock down, things will be much worst (even Boris Johnson admits this). There is no guarantee of government help in this situation beyond universal credit. Football (what is left of it) would be the least of our worries.

[dsr]

From now to the end of the season is an indeterminate period. We don't even know when and if the season will start yet. Also it only takes one positive coronavirus test to disrupt the fixtures. In the last week we have had 8 positive tests. If this was to happen once the season gets underway several fixtures will be postponed to a later date.

The TV companies are not going to like this state of affairs. The plug might eventually be pulled on the season due to the frustration of matches that keep getting postponed.

The question is not whether it is 'inhumane'. It is whether enough of them will agree to it. They probably won't. If they are frogmarched into games they won't be motivated to perform to their best potential. You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink - especially with an empty bucket.

Footballers will be 'preferential creditors' in the case of a club 'winding up' (Insolvency Act 1986). The clubs assets would be sold and the 'preferential creditors' paid off first.

My suggestion (the Korean route) would, in my opinion, make it less likely for clubs (and other companies for that matter) to end up in liquidation. If we have to go into a second lock down, things will be much worst (even Boris Johnson admits this). There is no guarantee of government help in this situation beyond universal credit. Football (what is left of it) would be the least of our worries.

They don't have to postpone several matches because of one single test, and a lot of inaccurate conclusions follow on from that mistake.

When a football club goes bust, properly bust, no-one gets any money because there are no assets left. Footballers are only preferential up to a statutory maximum, but in any case they get paid after mortgage holders and the club would be mortgaged to the hilt before going bust. You might be confusing the statutory rules with the FA rule that says a football club can only continue in the league of the players are paid in full; that has no weight in a winding up.

[bfcmik]

Week on week new cases are reducing despite over 10 times more tests being carried out now. Week by week the deaths and serious cases are reducing. 118 and 121 this Sunday and Monday, 170&160 last Sun/Mon and 268&210 a fortnight ago. The professor of infection analytics at Oxford University has said that he thinks new cases and deaths will not be reported separately by the ONS from the beginning of July as the UK will be within 'normal' death rate parameters by then. Total 'all-cause' death rate is only slightly raised from a bad spring already.

[HunterST_BFC]

Week on week new cases are reducing despite over 10 times more tests being carried out now. Week by week the deaths and serious cases are reducing. 118 and 121 this Sunday and Monday, 170&160 last Sun/Mon and 268&210 a fortnight ago. The professor of infection analytics at Oxford University has said that he thinks new cases and deaths will not be reported separately by the ONS from the beginning of July as the UK will be within 'normal' death rate parameters by then. Total 'all-cause' death rate is only slightly raised from a bad spring already.

You do know all the daily weekend figures / bank holiday figures have be lower each week than those of other days in the corresponding week - it is a constant pattern.
You do know people only die once.

We are far from nearing an end to this.

"Total 'all-cause' death rate is only slightly raised from a bad spring already."
that is so not true not sure where you get that from?

Don't wish to argue but some people are more prepared to wear blinkers than gloves at the moment.

[bfcmik]

"Total 'all-cause' death rate is only slightly raised from a bad spring already."
that is so not true not sure where you get that from?

It was stated by the government's chief scientific advisor at the daily briefing last Thursday. He stated that the all-cause rate is now within what would be the normal winter all-cause rate. The ONS graph I have attached clearly shows that, even as far back as May 8th the number were at the top end of the 5 year average for early April

c19 graph.JPG (75.08 KiB) Viewed 1424 times

age graph.JPG (79.33 KiB) Viewed 1420 times

[HunterST_BFC]

It was stated by the government's chief scientific advisor at the daily briefing last Thursday. He stated that the all-cause rate is now within what would be the normal winter all-cause rate. The ONS graph I have attached clearly shows that, even as far back as May 8th the number were at the top end of the 5 year average for early Aprilc19 graph.JPG

How about comparing each of the last 5 years month by month not the average. ?
You will see a huge rise this year
Then take away those "stated as Covid related" and you will see a big difference that can probably only be down to the way things are being turned into stats. The nature of death reporting maybe?

Covid related is a great way not to call a spade a spade when someone's life has ended due to something else as the main cause even though Covid gave it a push to shorten life.

Open your eyes. Get the facts. This is my last post on this thread as I don't wish it to escalate. I suggest doing the same and popping graphs that don't really show the full picture on the the Covid thread.

This is not ending soon and some stats are simply being played with.

Back to OP
Players really need to stop booking hookers if they are to train / play footy with team mates again (brought it back on topic phew)

[bfcmik]

How about comparing each of the last 5 years month by month not the average. ?
You will see a huge rise this year
Then take away those "stated as Covid related" and you will see a big difference that can probably only be down to the way things are being turned into stats. The nature of death reporting maybe?

I put the graph up to show that weekly 'all cause' rates were back below winter levels and into the 'bad spring' average levels.The graph is based on a weekly count - the sad spike of the extra 44000+ deaths, RIP, during April can be clearly seen. I was pointing out that the trend since mid-April has clearly seen consistent reductions in both cases and deaths with CoVid mentioned on the death certificate (confirmed or not). Any death, whether CoVid related or not, is a sadness - even though it comes to every one of us in time.

[UnderSeige]

They don't have to postpone several matches because of one single test, and a lot of inaccurate conclusions follow on from that mistake.

When a football club goes bust, properly bust, no-one gets any money because there are no assets left. Footballers are only preferential up to a statutory maximum, but in any case they get paid after mortgage holders and the club would be mortgaged to the hilt before going bust. You might be confusing the statutory rules with the FA rule that says a football club can only continue in the league of the players are paid in full; that has no weight in a winding up.

• One positive test.

• Track and trace kicks in.

• Who has that player come into contact with in the last few days?

• Trace them and instruct them to go into quarantine (14 days).

Those will be the rules for everyone under Boris's new 'world beating track and trace system'. If you track and trace and then let people (including footballers) go about their lives as normal the 'track and and trace' system won't work.

In Korea, any club that has one positive test case amongst staff or players will be banned for two weeks. Korea's track and trace methods are truly world class both for football and the economy overall. No footballers have been tested positive and their league restarted some time ago. Do we not want to learn from this? Should we not now have restarted football and be talking about getting fans back in stadiums like they are in Korea?

Clubs going bust. You could well be right about this. Not only football clubs. A significant part of the western economy is based on debt. Many Individuals, companies, football clubs and even countries are reliant on their incomes to keep rolling in so that they can stay solvent. Many of these are only a few weeks away from financial collapse.

A sudden interruption to incomes, as we are seeing now, can 'tip a lot of organisations and individuals over the edge'. I wouldn't be surprised, in the economic aftermath of all this, to see a lot of problems. Most notably big names disappearing from the high street; house repossessions; negative equity; the number of pubs and cafe's falling; people who have been laid off seeking employment at lower wages; and yes an number of football clubs folding. There is likely to be a lot of skint people in the months and years ahead due to to the economic interruption.

It didn't have to be this way (Korea).

[UnderSeige]

I put the graph up to show that weekly 'all cause' rates were back below winter levels and into the 'bad spring' average levels.The graph is based on a weekly count - the sad spike of the extra 44000+ deaths, RIP, during April can be clearly seen. I was pointing out that the trend since mid-April has clearly seen consistent reductions in both cases and deaths with CoVid mentioned on the death certificate (confirmed or not). Any death, whether CoVid related or not, is a sadness - even though it comes to every one of us in time.

It's great to see someone using actual data to back up their argument.

[UnderSeige]

It's possible that the whole squad will not now need to isolate if one player tests positive. I am not sure how this fits in with 'track and trace' though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... e-player/
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 22756.html

[conyoviejo]

Another four tested positive today..

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Not announced whether players or staff, at this time.

[conyoviejo]

From three separate clubs as well.

[Spijed]

Completely pointless idea of having a squad if teams expect to use their first eleven all the time.

[tiger76]

Completely pointless idea of having a squad if teams expect to use their first eleven all the time.

It's worked for Burnley for the last few seasons.

No on a serious note i agree if these players were injured/suspended they'd have to manage so what's the difference if they're ruled out due to CV.?

[Chester Perry]

remember they are now testing 60 people per club, they have been increasing the number by 10 each round of testing so far. So this could be people who have been tested for the first time - that means, not core squad or support staff who were in the first batch

[UnderSeige]

Another four tested positive today..

It looks like the Premier league are not now releasing the names of those who test positive. They could be players who have already tested positive in a previous round (the same players).

I have heard that some tests can throw out 'false positives'. The test says the person has the virus when they haven't. This can occur for weeks after a person first tested positive. After the person has fought off the disease there may still be numerous dead virus particles floating about. The tests can pick these up and throw out a false reading. The new antibody test should help get over this hurdle.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 77cad1743

[conyoviejo]

It looks like the Premier league are not now releasing the names of those who test positive. They could be players who have already tested positive in a previous round (the same players).

I have heard that some tests can throw out 'false positives'. The test says the person has the virus when they haven't. This can occur for weeks after a person first tested positive. After the person has fought off the disease there may still be numerous dead virus particles floating about. The tests can pick these up and throw out a false reading. The new antibody test should help get over this hurdle.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 77cad1743

It will be interesting to see how the tests fair after a few days of contact football.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

It looks like the Premier league are not now releasing the names of those who test positive.

They never have. All those announced have ‘fessed up themselves.

[UnderSeige]

It's possible that the whole squad will not now need to isolate if one player tests positive. I am not sure how this fits in with 'track and trace' though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... e-player/
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 22756.html

The government may agree that the whole squad doesn't need to isolate. This has yet to be decided. The principle of this is that the government will not have a whole workplace isolate if just one member of staff tests positive.

If it is agreed it will work well for clubs as long as only a small number of positive test cases occur during the season. The fixture list will be unlikely to be disrupted much.

The problem would then occur if the virus starts to spread through clubs. This would likely lead to another postponement of the league and a rethink. The K league will ban any team for two weeks if just one player tests positive.

[UnderSeige]

The government have thrown another stick in the spokes today by saying that they are going to introduce lockdown to specific areas where case numbers are high. This would include all workplaces. In such a situation, if the case numbers were rising fast in Burnley, we would not be able to play at home until the case numbers started falling again. We would most likely have to play our home matches on neutral grounds or postpone them until the area 'lockdown' is lifted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52814833

[UnderSeige]

They never have. All those announced have ‘fessed up themselves.

Good for them. It gives everyone else the 'heads up' to avoid them for a couple of weeks.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

Good for them. It gives everyone else the 'heads up' to avoid them for a couple of weeks.

They are supposed to go into 7 days isolation and it is their personal medical history, so understandable really.

[tiger76]

Eight people tested positive in the Premier League's first two rounds of testing - making it a total of 12 from 2,752 tests.

A dozen positive testes out of the better part of 3,000 it's hardly a huge amount is it,equates to 1 in 230,if the cases don't get any worse there's no reason the league can't commence in a few weeks,as long as various safeguards are correctly applied it should one of the safest environments in the country.

[UnderSeige]

Eight people tested positive in the Premier League's first two rounds of testing - making it a total of 12 from 2,752 tests.

A dozen positive testes out of the better part of 3,000 it's hardly a huge amount is it,equates to 1 in 230,if the cases don't get any worse there's no reason the league can't commence in a few weeks,as long as various safeguards are correctly applied it should one of the safest environments in the country.

A lot of this will depend on what players and staff do in their private lives. If players could all be isolated in a kind of 'world cup camp crossed with concentration camp' the danger of the virus spreading would be almost zero. However, in reality players will be travelling between training and their families at a time when a number of restrictions are being lifted.

If players are then going out shopping a lot or having a drink in a pub/coffee bar, a number of them are likely to bring the virus into their clubs. Once in the club, the virus would spread quickly due to the 'close contact nature' of the game.

The players will need to exercise extra caution. It would be better for football if they completely stayed away from the community in general - get their shopping delivered etc. However, I don't think this will be forced on them. It's up to them really.

[tiger76]

A lot of this will depend on what players and staff do in their private lives. If players could all be isolated in a kind of 'world cup camp crossed with concentration camp' the danger of the virus spreading would be almost zero. However, in reality players will be travelling between training and their families at a time when a number of restrictions are being lifted.

If players are then going out shopping a lot or having a drink in a pub/coffee bar, a number of them are likely to bring the virus into their clubs. Once in the club, the virus would spread quickly due to the 'close contact nature' of the game.

The players will need to exercise extra caution. It would be better for football if they completely stayed away from the community in general - get their shopping delivered etc. However, I don't think this will be forced on them. It's up to them really.

The cynic in me would suggest that relegation threatened teams will encourage their players to socialise more,but i have a very cynical nature.

If the domestic season is scheduled to wrap up by late July,then it's not beyond the bounds that squads could self-isolate in hotels for 6 weeks or so.

I am aware that some players will have their own personal circumstances,so it's not a one size fits all approach.

I do agree the big danger is when competitive action starts again,i doubt players will be visiting pubs/coffee bars anytime soon however.

One way of ensuring the spread is contained would be daily testing,and once the resumption commences that may well occur.

[dsr]

Eight people tested positive in the Premier League's first two rounds of testing - making it a total of 12 from 2,752 tests.

A dozen positive testes out of the better part of 3,000 it's hardly a huge amount is it,equates to 1 in 230,if the cases don't get any worse there's no reason the league can't commence in a few weeks,as long as various safeguards are correctly applied it should one of the safest environments in the country.

It also strongly implies that the suggested 2% inaccuracy isn't right, because even if no-one at all had the disease, with 2% false positive inaccuracy you would expect 55 positive-but-wrong results. As far as false positives go, there must be very very few.

[UnderSeige]

It also strongly implies that the suggested 2% inaccuracy isn't right, because even if no-one at all had the disease, with 2% false positive inaccuracy you would expect 55 positive-but-wrong results. As far as false positives go, there must be very very few.

Yes I think that all positive tests will be taken as positive with no appeal.

The 'false positive test' is yet another problem. It will be awkward if a player is still testing positive three or four weeks later after first testing positive but with no symptoms.

[UnderSeige]

The cynic in me would suggest that relegation threatened teams will encourage their players to socialise more,but i have a very cynical nature.

If the domestic season is scheduled to wrap up by late July,then it's not beyond the bounds that squads could self-isolate in hotels for 6 weeks or so.

I am aware that some players will have their own personal circumstances,so it's not a one size fits all approach.

I do agree the big danger is when competitive action starts again,i doubt players will be visiting pubs/coffee bars anytime soon however.

One way of ensuring the spread is contained would be daily testing,and once the resumption commences that may well occur.

It's extremely doubtful that even relegation threatened teams will want their players to contract the virus. If it was the case they should be drummed out of football.

I don't think the hotel/world cup camp option is on the cards at the moment.

Players can't visit pubs or cafe's anytime soon. Apart from takeways they are all closed. The danger occurs when the government allows them to start opening them again. This will most likely be shortly after football resumes.

There will also be the problem of fans huddling together in the pubs to watch the matches.

[UnderSeige]

The cynic in me would suggest that relegation threatened teams will encourage their players to socialise more,but i have a very cynical nature.

If the domestic season is scheduled to wrap up by late July,then it's not beyond the bounds that squads could self-isolate in hotels for 6 weeks or so.

I am aware that some players will have their own personal circumstances,so it's not a one size fits all approach.

I do agree the big danger is when competitive action starts again,i doubt players will be visiting pubs/coffee bars anytime soon however.

One way of ensuring the spread is contained would be daily testing,and once the resumption commences that may well occur.

An example that reinforces the point that players could go out into the community, get the virus and then bring it back to their clubs.

Bournemouth's Aaron Ramsdale tests positive after 'shopping trip'
https://www.espn.com/soccer/afc-bournem ... pping-trip

[UnderSeige]

Some more recent examples of positive covid-19 tests from various leagues around the globe.

Four Lokomotiv Moscow players test positive for coronavirus.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-c ... KL8N2DA3CP

Blackburn Rovers skipper Elliott Bennett and two Fulham players have tested positive for the disease caused by the novel coronavirus in the latest batch of tests conducted by the English Football League (EFL).
https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/he ... r-covid-19

3 players on Brazilian soccer team test positive
https://www.wsls.com/sports/2020/05/06/ ... sume-soon/

Five soccer players in Spain test positive for Covid-19
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020/05 ... -covid-19/