Sky1981
Fending off the urge
In Cologne's case, only the two players and the physio who tested positive are in self isolation. Rest of the team continues to train as normal.
You're always a fecked up away from having the whole team infected.
In Cologne's case, only the two players and the physio who tested positive are in self isolation. Rest of the team continues to train as normal.
In isolation, this is just not a problem at all. Players get sick and injured all the time, this wouldn't be any different.So three players of german team Cologne have tested positive to Covid-19.
Should they play without them - is that fair?
In isolation, this is just not a problem at all. Players get sick and injured all the time, this wouldn't be any different.
There's a lot of sensible arguments why they shouldn't restart the league, but this one is just silly.
So this is just silly?!
Can Koln play without the two players?
What if more test positive and also in other teams?
Feck football - lives are more important presently.
apparently not, it's hunger games. where few sacrifices for the cheers of millions
Yes, teams play with less than their full squad all the time. The idea that when one player is unable to play the whole competition is unfair is very very silly.So this is just silly?!
Can Koln play without the two players?
What if more test positive and also in other teams?
Feck football - lives are more important presently.
Yes, teams play with less than their full squad all the time. The idea that when one player is unable to play the whole competition is unfair is very very silly.
I specifically said that there are other factors in play and I'm only disputing this one specific silly argument. I'm not sure how this suddenly equals the death of society or whatever.
Yes, teams play with less than their full squad all the time. The idea that when one player is unable to play the whole competition is unfair is very very silly.
I specifically said that there are other factors in play and I'm only disputing this one specific silly argument. I'm not sure how this suddenly equals the death of society or whatever.
That's a whole other argument all together with the contagiousness of the virus and the lack of completely 100% reliable test.What about if they have 7 people infected with CV?
That's a whole other argument all together with the contagiousness of the virus and the lack of completely 100% reliable test.
I'm specifically talking about the idea that one missing player would threaten the integrity of the competition which is demonstrably wrong.
Look you can either try to refute my argument or continue going on on unrelated tangents.It's your prerogative if you just can't see the implications but that's up to you.
When NORMAL injuries happen it follows that teams play without their players.
But this Covid-19 is not NORMALITY and the rest of the season will not be played in a normal scenario but just to appease Sky and BT and some other teams who we all know.
If you can't see that then you're being silly not my argument.
I don't know what to tell you, is there a cut off point in fairness with injuries?The question you answered specifically stated two players. I’m wondering what your cut off point is.
The only silly argument I see is the comparison between injuries and COVID-19. Injuries are non-infectious while COVID-19 is transmissible. When a player is injured, the rest of the team can train and play as usual; but when a player is diagnosed with COVID-19, those with close contacts including most of his teammates and opponents within the previous 14 days are subject to self-isolation and further testing. If, unfortunately, some of the previous opponents are tested positive, another set of players will be involved and the story will extend indefinitely. So this involves plenty of personnels and is not just about "one player unable to play". For your reference, the City vs Arsenal game was postponed before the lockdown just because some Arsenal players made contact with Marinakis, the Olympiakos owner.Yes, teams play with less than their full squad all the time. The idea that when one player is unable to play the whole competition is unfair is very very silly.
I specifically said that there are other factors in play and I'm only disputing this one specific silly argument. I'm not sure how this suddenly equals the death of society or whatever.
I don't know what to tell you, is there a cut off point in fairness with injuries?
I don't have any answers regarding the potential comeback, I'm just pointing out that players being unable to play is not unfair, it's a thing that happens literally all the time.
You're always a fecked up away from having the whole team infected.
Look you can either try to refute my argument or continue going on on unrelated tangents.
No, they tested the rest of the squad and only those 3 have tested positive so unless there is an off chance that they the virus is dormant in some of the players /coaches, the other people are free of the virus and should be able to continue.
They are testing players every 3 or 2 days I think so there is regular upkeep of who has the virus and should be quarantined, along with strict measures during training about sharing code space.
Does that go for every walk of life?
If one player is out, the entire squad should be quarantined.
?
Does that go for every walk of life?
If one person gets infected once McDonalds is open, does it shut again alongside the businesses who hold any employee that came into contact with him? What if that includes an essential bank? Or a supermarket?
Isolating mass people on one positive result was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up, it's not sustainable long term.
Another very important issue which is cropping up this week is that the players themselves are afraid of playing.
Have you seen Aguero, Laporte and others stating they're afraid to play?
Aren't the players important?
But then the entire team will probably get infected and that team can no longer play?Does that go for every walk of life?
If one person gets infected once McDonalds is open, does it shut again alongside the businesses who hold any employee that came into contact with him? What if that includes an essential bank? Or a supermarket?
Isolating mass people on one positive result was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up, it's not sustainable long term.
It's difficult to define "close contact", but it generally refers to face-to-face contact for at least 15 mins, so a few conversations in daily life are fine especially with surgical masks on. On the pitch, however, it's a different story. Players don't wear masks in a game and they could do all sorts of high risk behaviors, from whispering, hugging, to spitting, headbutting, biting, you name it.Does that go for every walk of life?
If one person gets infected once McDonalds is open, does it shut again alongside the businesses who hold any employee that came into contact with him? What if that includes an essential bank? Or a supermarket?
Isolating mass people on one positive result was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up, it's not sustainable long term.
If one person gets infected once McDonalds is open, does it shut again alongside the businesses who hold any employee that came into contact with him? What if that includes an essential bank? Or a supermarket?
Its not silly. They are being put an undue risk by the league. With how contagious it is, and the 14 day quarantine period, Its not comparable to an injury at allIn isolation, this is just not a problem at all. Players get sick and injured all the time, this wouldn't be any different.
There's a lot of sensible arguments why they shouldn't restart the league, but this one is just silly.
Non essential business are in no way comparable to contact sports.Honestly some of you lot should never leave your house ever again if this 'what if' game is your mindset. Weld your front door and be done with it because if you're looking for a world with literally no risk, there's not one part of the outside world that furfills that desire.
Eventually we have to coexist with this virus, yes people who test positive have to isolate and rightly so but isolating everyone they come into contact with was only ever a sticky plaster route while we played catch up. Say McDonald's open and one employee tests positive. Does that restraunt have to close alongside the workplaces of whoever came into contact with him? What if that covers half the town in questions high street? What if one of those places is an essential bank like Halifax?
Non essential businesses are starting to make plans to open up, none are totally risk free but all are taking the precautions to limit risk. McDonald's is opening up gradually, BBC want EastEnders to resume filming in June etc..
Not opening things up on the off chance isn't sensible, it's stupid, because you end up tanking the economy which will lead to inadequate funding of the NHS and ultimately end up costing most of the lives you think you're saving (plus excess). Restarting business with precautions is the happy medium between both ends of stupid (going back to complete normal and keeping everything shut until the virus is gone, to which point the virus would have long been the least of our worries).
Ultimately with all the precautions being taken (controlled, mass testing, BCD, distancing at every stage humanely possible) footballers will actually be much, much safer than they were in the few weeks leading up to footballs cancellation, when they were playing in full crowds and changing together despite the virus being on the ascendency.
Said this about 50 pages ago.If Premier League footballers - the biggest "role models" around (especially amongst young people) - are allowed to play a contact sport then that's social distancing over with. If they can do it, then people will think they can do it, getting together in mates' houses to watch the games on TV and have a few drinks. And who can blame them? Can't be having one rule for multi millionaire footballers and another rule for the rest of us.
The first part of your post is total nonsense and as someone whos brother suffers from loneliness and depression and has attempted suicide in the past, quite frankly, your an absolute prickLot of unhappy people on this planet mate. Lots of them have been unhappy and isolated for donkeys years, and are now finally feeling 'normal' because the entire world has been drawn down to their level. So of course, these people have a vested interest and desire to want this shit to continue indefinitely - they finally don't feel alone or weird, because everyone else is in the same position.
After this shit ends, which it will MUCH sooner than most realise (and by end, I mean the world keeps ticking, rather than the virus goes away), a LOT of people are going to need medication to even leave their gardens to get food. It's terrifying really, a lot of people are going to be destroyed mentally by this because right now they're being told that opening their front door means a 50/50 chance of dying and they believe it.
@Brightonian made detailed posts a few days back that basically counter everything you said and explains in detail why inclosed working is actually more risky than controlled environments like BCD football.Does working at McDonald's, a bank or a supermarket require one man to barge into another repeatedly? Make hundreds of intimate contacts during the mere matter of an hour? Literally breathe down someone else's throat?
Physical distancing is impossible in contact sports like football. Impossible. It is shocking to see the lack of insight when you attempt to make parallels.