Premier League have confirmed from the results received so far there are six players having tested positive at three different clubs.

6 out of 748 tests.

Will isolate for seven days. If the numbers are similar to Germany it shouldn't become a major issue.

Some people are testing positive and have no symptoms what so ever.

A major plus if there are little or no effects for some people.
Surely a plus if some are just feeling a little groggy for a few days like a normal cold or viral infection.

They may not necessarily be players

How often do the players and staff have to be tested?surely to make it worthwhile it'll need to be at least once a week,and probably more than that.

And i'd imagine all the squads will be tested prior to matches,and individuals needed to test negative before getting the go-ahead to participate.

It shouldn't be a huge problem,as long as the clubs are regularly testing,and isolating any players who are displaying symptoms.

6 out of 3 clubs, yet 748 tests, which I will make a SWAG at and say a lot more than 3 clubs will have been tested, also I don't think it differentiated as to player but 6 players or staff, so not really clusters, I have no idea on average how many players and staff would be tested per club.

I'm a bit puzzled by the seven day isolation. I thought if you had the virus you should isolate for fourteen days according to Public Health England?

Twice weekly testing across all 20 clubs first team squads and staff

Spijed wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:35 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by the seven day isolation. I thought if you had the virus you should isolate for fourteen days according to Public Health England?

For most of the rest of the world they went with 14 days from the end of symptoms. In the UK it is 7 days from the start of symptoms. It is however 14 days if you suspect you may have caught it but don't have symptoms (e.g. you live with someone with symptoms).

No doubt the 3 clubs are Villa, Watford and the whining East Sussex club.

Spijed wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:35 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by the seven day isolation. I thought if you had the virus you should isolate for fourteen days according to Public Health England?

This is the latest info i can find from PHE https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... infection

Spijed wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:35 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by the seven day isolation. I thought if you had the virus you should isolate for fourteen days according to Public Health England?

No 7 days for the person who gets it and 14 days for you household members.

KateR wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:34 pm

6 out of 3 clubs, yet 748 tests, which I will make a SWAG at and say a lot more than 3 clubs will have been tested, also I don't think it differentiated as to player but 6 players or staff, so not really clusters, I have no idea on average how many players and staff would be tested per club.

It means only three clubs have reported any positive tests, any others have sent back a clean bill of health.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:27 pm

Some people are testing positive and have no symptoms what so ever.

A major plus if there are little or no effects for some people.
Surely a plus if some are just feeling a little groggy for a few days like a normal cold or viral infection.

Said same. The more testing is done the more we understand how many and how severely have had it b

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:44 pm

It means only three clubs have reported any positive tests, any others have sent back a clean bill of health.

yes agree, what I was trying (obviously not clearly) to muse on was that the 748 tested would not be only from those three clubs, plus the 748 divided by 20 would mean only 38 players and staff approximately, which seem a low number for me to be tested who will be involved when playing behind closed doors. For example will ball boys from each club be tested, I would have thought yes. I was expecting 50+ from each club but again just pure guess work.

Therefore am just guessing that 748 testing results are not from the 20 PL clubs required for the total testing picture regarding PL resuming.

I think 38 would be a reasonable number, say 24 players, that leaves 14 staff. I’m assuming tho that ball boys would be able to socially distance.

Maybe should have done this to start with:

German league says 10 out of 1,700 coronavirus tests are positive from 36 clubs, so approx. 47 per club, but am sure we will know in the fullness of time.

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:39 pm

No doubt the 3 clubs are Villa, Watford and the whining East Sussex club.

DK but Troy Deeney's adamant he's not returning to training let alone playing https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52721397

I guess if you've got a young family to consider,or older relatives who are unwell,then it's a hard call for many players,they don't want to let their club and fans down,but equally they don't want to endanger their nearest and dearest.

everyone is entitled to not to go to work if they believe it is dangerous, no matter what profession, we all make decisions based on risk and we all have different risks even if doing exactly the same job. For example parents may feel being a ball boy right now is just to risky and prevent children from taking part. It's an individuals choice and no one should be ridiculed or have fingers pointed at them for this, not saying anyone is, just my opinion.

Bigvince wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:03 pm

I think 38 would be a reasonable number, say 24 players, that leaves 14 staff. I’m assuming tho that ball boys would be able to socially distance.

I would assume they won't have ball boys. Why on earth would they? What would be the point?

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:18 pm

I would assume they won't have ball boys. Why on earth would they? What would be the point?

To get the ball back! In fact with empty stands they’ll need even more people retrieving the ball, not less.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:18 pm

I would assume they won't have ball boys. Why on earth would they? What would be the point?

ball boys were part of the German league start up and matches I believe, they were also sanitizing/disinfecting/cleaning balls

Fans were banned from matches, with police patrolling to make sure no crowds gathered at the venues. Only 213 people were allowed into the ground - 98 on and around the pitch (like players, coaches and ball boys) and 115 in the stands (such as security, medics and media).

98 on and around the pitch for 2 teams, again leads me to think PL have not finished testing

Another 109 people (including security and VAR operators) were allowed just outside the stadium.

Footballs were disinfected by ball boys before the game and again at half-time.

yet if they are going with no ball boys then the PL number drops

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:19 pm

To get the ball back! In fact with empty stands they’ll need even more people retrieving the ball, not less.

I think one of the new rule changes is they're going to put walls up so it will be like ice hockey. Will also help to contain any infection.

aggi wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:26 pm

I think one of the new rule changes is they're going to put walls up so it will be like ice hockey. Will also help to contain any infection.

Are the Mexicans paying for them

martin_p wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:19 pm

To get the ball back! In fact with empty stands they’ll need even more people retrieving the ball, not less.

Good point it's details like this that will have to be ironed out before any restart can get the go-ahead,it shouldn't be too difficult to get youth team players to partake this activity,as long as both clubs are content they'll behave correctly,and not favour the home team,assuming we have home teams,but as the neutral grounds idea has died a death now,i guess we will.

6 more people who could die from the virus.Just so they could return to training.

I’m not sure we’d need to many more ball boys, if we were using the multi ball system, I’d have thought we could afford a few more footballs

6 out of 748 is a worry .
Thats a very high percentage.

It would mean that if that is a representative sample then there are 440,000 people in England infected.

If as some have suggested there were 150,000 infected on any given day last week these figures would suggest footballers have not been following social distancing rules aswell as the general population

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:30 pm

6 more people who could die from the virus.Just so they could return to training.

The tests were on Sunday and Monday and training was allowed from today, so I’m not sure what your point is. Wherever they caught it, it wasn’t at a football training ground.

Perhaps they’ve all been to one of Kyle walkers parties

BBC report: Premier League: Six positive coronavirus tests across three clubs - on Sunday and Monday this week.

viewforum.php?f=2

Players are only going back into training this week - and only in small groups - no contact at this stage - maybe this is starting out with fitness training and doesn't involved in ball work.

Returning to playing competitive matches is some weeks away - I don't think they've agreed/confirmed 12 June, yet.

I doubt any ball boys are involved in training. I wouldn't expect any ball boys to be tested at this stage. I wouldn't expect the PL to report on the number of ball boys that have had tests and the results of those tests. Closer to the time I'd expect candidates for ball boy duties to be tested. Maybe this will include members of youth teams. We are all social distancing. Maybe this is all that is required for candidates for ball boy duties until much nearer the re-start of competitive games. Maybe there will be a large enough pool of candidates for ball boys - any that test positive before the games will be dropped from the pool - and unlikely to appear in any reports of positive tests.

Just my views. Has PL said anything about testing ball boys (and can we include girls in these ball retrieval services)?

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:30 pm

6 more people who could die from the virus.Just so they could return to training.

I'm just thinking we should take all the "high powered" cars away from the premier league footballers. I think the saying was "speed kills."

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:30 pm

6 more people who could die from the virus.Just so they could return to training.

Eh? It’s six people who ordinarily probably wouldn’t have been tested and can now isolate.

They'll need 5,000 ball boys per ground for 'Long Ball Burnley".

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:30 pm

6 more people who could die from the virus.Just so they could return to training.

Millions of people weren't given a choice but to continue working. Supermarket staff; lorry drivers, warehouse people and forklift drivers to load them; care home workers; hospital staff, many teachers, bus drivers and the people who keep the buses fit to run; people who work at Amazon, Boohoo and the rest plus the van/car drivers to deliver those goods; Airport staff (as flights haven't been cancelled); aircraft part manufacturers (Safran, Burnley are still working 3 shifts where it is apparently impossible to socially distance from colleagues); the list goes on - and all for a LOT less money than these guys are on.

If we're waiting till nobody in the country has coronavirus, as some would appear to be implying, we can kiss goodbye to football in this country permanently.

randomclaret2 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 6:24 pm

If we're waiting till nobody in the country has coronavirus, as some would appear to be implying, we can kiss goodbye to football in this country permanently.

We can kiss goodbye to any life at all, permanently!

In the entire history of medicine only 1 disease has ever been wiped off the face the Earth - smallpox!

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 6:28 pm

We can kiss goodbye to any life at all, permanently!

In the entire history of medicine only 1 disease has ever been wiped off the face the Earth - smallpox!

Think there are some who are enjoying having an excuse for their reclusive behaviour

KateR wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:14 pm

everyone is entitled to not to go to work if they believe it is dangerous, no matter what profession, we all make decisions based on risk and we all have different risks even if doing exactly the same job. For example parents may feel being a ball boy right now is just to risky and prevent children from taking part. It's an individuals choice and no one should be ridiculed or have fingers pointed at them for this, not saying anyone is, just my opinion.

What I do not understand is why he can’t live elsewhere for six weeks? When I was growing up, my Dad’s job took him all over the world and he was generally away for 3 months at a time, maybe home for a few weeks inbetween. We all hated it, but needs must. I have friends who work in the army, on oil rigs, etc. Again, all would prefer not to be away from their families, but they do it to pay the bills.

In Deeney’s case, he’d have to do it for 6 weeks, having just spent 8 weeks solid with his family. Then, following it, he’ll most likely have an extended summer break with several more months to spend with his family. Plus, he’ll be getting tested regularly so, assuming he stayed negative, could meet family in a park at the weekends and social distance - it’s not like he can’t see them at all for that time, as in the examples I outlined above.

If he’s set against it, fine, but if Watford go down because their captain wouldn’t turn up and play, I’d be pretty furious as a team mate, manager or owner. I certainly wouldn’t be paying him for the period (which apparently he doesn’t care about, so that won’t be an issue).

Bet he changes his tune.

The company doing the tests has suggested a 98.8% accuracy (a wonderful use of statistics to show whatever you what it to show). The government has been pretty coy about exactly how accurate testing is. As I read it, 98.8% accuracy just means of the 748 tests, 9 are likely to be incorrect. This is quite concerning. The test itself is unlikely to have many, if any, false positives. Let's assume it could be 1 in 6 (at most). Which means that would suggest 8 false negatives - or 8 missed cases. That's a hit rate of only 43%. I was under the impression it was more like 65%. No wonder the government are reticent about giving us this info...

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 7:24 pm

The company doing the tests has suggested a 98.8% accuracy (a wonderful use of statistics to show whatever you what it to show). The government has been pretty coy about exactly how accurate testing is. As I read it, 98.8% accuracy just means of the 748 tests, 9 are likely to be incorrect. This is quite concerning. The test itself is unlikely to have many, if any, false positives. Let's assume it could be 1 in 6 (at most). Which means that would suggest 8 false negatives - or 8 missed cases. That's a hit rate of only 43%. I was under the impression it was more like 65%. No wonder the government are reticent about giving us this info...

Hi Rooster, I admit I'm struggling with your accuracy maths. Can you take me through it?

One positive at Burnley - assistant manager Ian Woan

paulatky wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 5:38 pm

6 out of 748 is a worry .
Thats a very high percentage.

It would mean that if that is a representative sample then there are 440,000 people in England infected.

If as some have suggested there were 150,000 infected on any given day last week these figures would suggest footballers have not been following social distancing rules aswell as the general population

EDIT

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 8:19 pm

One positive at Burnley - assistant manager Ian Woan

Get well soon Ian..

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 8:19 pm

One positive at Burnley - assistant manager Ian Woan

Hope he is ok and makes a full and speedy recovery and with a bit of luck it might stop some of the idiots on here using positive Covid tests as an excuse to have a go at certain players and clubs

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 8:30 pm

Get well soon Ian..

He has no symptoms but is now required to self isolate for a week

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 8:31 pm

He has no symptoms but is now required to self isolate for a week

Highlights the benefit of testing. He may otherwise have been unknowingly spreading the virus on visits to supermarkets etc.

Ian Wuhan

Tested positive for Covid-19 on Sunday. GWS.
Hopefully this announcement means none of the players did.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 8:31 pm

He has no symptoms but is now required to self isolate for a week

What about anybody he has been in contact with ? Them too?