Not really a surprise....

Over 2 lots of testing though, so the headline figure isn't quite right.

40 during one week, more than double the weekly high

were they all at the same party?

Along with the 1in50 of the population

it is players and staff and the majority are at City and Fulham

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:28 pm

it is players and staff and the majority are at City and Fulham

Maybe it's time bans were handed to players, or wins handed to the opposing club if games are postponed.

"The Premier League says 40 players and club staff have tested positive for coronavirus over the past week - more than double the previous weekly high.

After previously testing once a week, the Premier League conducted 2,295 tests across two rounds over the past week.

Between 28 and 31 December, there were 28 new positive tests and 12 more found between 1 and 3 January.

The previous high was 18 positive results from 21 to 27 December.

"With low numbers of positive tests across the overwhelming majority of clubs, the league continues to have confidence in its Covid-19 protocols, fully backed by the government, to enable fixtures to be played as scheduled," said the Premier League."

Three matches in the English top flight were called off last week because of coronavirus outbreaks at individual clubs.

Manchester City's trip to Everton on 28 December was called off after full-back Kyle Walker and striker Gabriel Jesus tested positive.

City's match at Chelsea on Sunday went ahead despite four more members of Pep Guardiola's squad - goalkeeper Ederson, defender Eric Garcia, forward Ferran Torres and midfielder Tommy Doyle - returning positive results.

Two Fulham away matches were also postponed - at Tottenham on 30 December and Burnley on 3 January.

Fulham said the matches were cancelled after a "significant number" of positive cases at the club.

Last Tuesday, Sheffield United said they had recorded "a number" of positive tests but opted to play at Crystal Palace on Saturday with a depleted squad.

The importance of players sticking to the protocols has been stressed to the 20 Premier League clubs.

It comes after there were a number of apparent coronavirus breaches by players over Christmas and the New Year.

Full BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55540397

0.6% of tests carried out in Premier league this season have been positive..... 0.6...

Grumps wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:45 pm

0.6% of tests carried out in Premier league this season have been positive..... 0.6...

....or 1.75% of the latest weeks sample. An approximate 200% increase on your figure.

Aren't numbers amazing?

StuffyClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:52 pm

....or 1.75% of the latest weeks sample. An approximate 200% increase on your figure.

Aren't numbers amazing?

It's not my figure, it's the official Premier league one

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:31 pm

Maybe it's time bans were handed to players, or wins handed to the opposing club if games are postponed.

I’m not sure I’d want some of our close league rivals picking up three points because, let’s say City, cause a game to be postponed.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:31 pm

Maybe it's time bans were handed to players, or wins handed to the opposing club if games are postponed.

The potential problem with that is clubs may try and keep it to themselves that a player has Covid, so they don't get punished.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:01 pm

The potential problem with that is clubs may try and keep it to themselves that a player has Covid, so they don't get punished.

Make the tests done by independent companies then.

RMutt wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:00 pm

I’m not sure I’d want some of our close league rivals picking up three points because, let’s say City, cause a game to be postponed.

We would be owed 3 points by Fulham.

As Simon Jordan said on the radio today, the players involved are morons and harsh punishment is the only way they'll learn.

Grumps wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:58 pm

It's not my figure, it's the official Premier league one

Apologies Grumps. My point stands though in that figures can be manipulated to demonstrate anybodies opinion.

My calculation of 1.75% is shocking when you consider that the latest ONS figures state that 1 in 50 (2%) of the English population had Covid last week. In other words, the Premier League 'Bubble' is having hardly any effect on controlling the impact of the virus on those folk.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:07 pm

Make the tests done by independent companies then.

Independent companies should focus on the general public. If football wants to cheat around with it then let the government shut them down for the foreseeable future and heavily fine them.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:08 pm

We would be owed 3 points by Fulham.

As Simon Jordan said on the radio today, the players involved are morons and harsh punishment is the only way they'll learn.

How can you prove that footballers have got covid by breaking the rules though? I expect that a significant majority of people who test positive do so through no fault of their own.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:31 pm

How can you prove that footballers have got covid by breaking the rules though? I expect that a significant majority of people who test positive do so through no fault of their own.

Start with those who've been caught breaking the rules.
If they've since tested positive for Covid then that's your starting point, not really rocket science.

The fact its more prevalent at City and Fulham should be a good indicator of where to start.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:33 pm

Start with those who've been caught breaking the rules.
If they've since tested positive for Covid then that's your starting point, not really rocket science.

The fact its more prevalent at City and Fulham should be a good indicator of where to start.

But you’ve suggested bans for players or wins for the opposition if positive tests cause games to be postponed. I agree entirely that players caught flouting the rules should be punished, but an outbreak of covid in a team may not have been caused by rule breaking.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:37 pm

But you’ve suggested bans for players or wins for the opposition if positive tests cause games to be postponed. I agree entirely that players caught flouting the rules should be punished, but an outbreak of covid in a team may not have been caused by rule breaking.

If the outbreaks are due to players breaking rules then a financial fine to the player isn't going to get the message across, because they're idiots.

Handing a win to the opposing team or banning the players for x amount of games should do it.

I've seen my teenage sons 3 times in the last 12 months, so I've no time for footballers who can't resist getting their end away or holding parties with their friends.

Harsh punishment is required for rule breakers.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:57 pm

If the outbreaks are due to players breaking rules then a financial fine to the player isn't going to get the message across, because they're idiots.

Handing a win to the opposing team or banning the players for x amount of games should do it.

I've seen my teenage sons 3 times in the last 12 months, so I've no time for footballers who can't resist getting their end away or holding parties with their friends.

Harsh punishment is required for rule breakers.

I think a fairly lengthy ban would be the most appropriate punishment. I don’t disagree with you there, my point is that not every player who tests positive will have done so by flouting the rules. In fact it’s likely that a significant majority who test positive have done nothing wrong.

Another difficulty is proving whether an outbreak has been caused by the rule-breaking.

How many players/backroom staff had Fulham tested for covid before trip to the Turf was cancelled can't seem to find any figures any where,only that one player was at a party but that would'nt be enough to call the game off therefor the game should have been played surely?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:31 pm

How can you prove that footballers have got covid by breaking the rules though? I expect that a significant majority of people who test positive do so through no fault of their own.

They normally post photos on Instagram

It's interesting how cup teams have been told they can play the game with just 14 players but PL games are getting called off with less positive results.

joey13 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:01 pm

They normally post photos on Instagram

The photos don’t prove how covid was contracted and how it came into the team’s ‘bubble’. Although if photos prove that someone has broken the rules then they should be punished accordingly.

Perhaps they should follow the lead of other sportspeople and jump into 20 separate PL bubbles for the next 6 weeks or so to see how it goes. Australian rugby league did it, baseball did it, cricket did it, so it isn't above football to do it. As ever, the caveat should be that players can opt out as long as they are willing to go on furlough.