Which also why I'm consistently saying that this is not viable at this point? Lack of reliable test and lack tests in general is obviously a problem at this point.
Its not comparable to a normal injury or an off field sickness like the flu.
If you read the posts properly someone on your side of the fence started with the whole agenda stuff.
So a maccies worker tests positive, he lives with a Halifax worker who has close contact with every one of his colleague, all the Halifax workers isolate and an essential banking service shuts down.
If we continue under the assumption that there's no transmission in the team, because we would theoretically be able to remove them from the process before they're able to infect anyone else, then how would that be any different than losing them because of a hamstring injury?
Because were in a global pandemic and the league is putting them in unnecessary harms way.
Yes his partner or whatever would isolate, but that doesn't mean everyone that they have come into contact with in turn would have to isolate, that's a bit you've invented for yourself. You're making less and less sense, take a break.
Right so you won't have isolate footballers just because their teammates test positive, thankyou for clearing that up and I suggest you take your own advice!
So your not discussing the "Is it fair to the club that they play without unavailable players?" question with me, but rather the "Is it fair to the players that they play during a global pandemic?" which is not something I have expressed my opinion about at all.
Im talking about both.
Every post a cock-up, you're consistent, I'll give you that. The teammates would be main contacts, they should isolate. To use your own stupid extension if they had called in a supermarket then all the supermarket workers and their customers would not have to isolate because they would not be not main contacts. If it's hard to understand just think main contacts and it will be easier.
It feels like your still mostly discussing the latter, but there's no such thing as a time with no risk of infection for at least about a year and a half, very likely longer. So when will the start not be premature anymore?
Yet Bruno Fernandes has made a post of his Instagram making it pretty clear he wants to play again asap, KDB has implied he's going to extend his career due to how much he misses the game and reading between the lines from watching interviews our players can't wait to get back (especially the young ones).
In my mind
So teammates who will largely be outdoors in controlled environments are classed as main contacts but Halifax workers who work together in relitevely closed space with not half the controlled measures, mass testing and members of the public (law of averages suggest atleast one person a week if not day will visit with symptoms ignoring the guidelines) visiting their branch aren't?
It's absolute comedy gold to see you of all people complain about others being condescending
Regarding restarting the league, people are obviously overplaying the risks of players/coaches spreading the virus to others given the strict restrictions in place during training and regular testing taking place. One thing to consider is that Cologne have been in training for a month now, along with all other Bundesliga teams, and yet there haven't been a high number of positive cases (or rather, cases with symptoms), if the danger were that high then we would have been more serious cases crop up in this time.
Also, only 3 players/staff tested positive from a whole club so if the management of risks weren't great then it would have spread a lot more. Although we will have to wait and see what results other clubs release.
But again, I stress, this can only be effective if there is a large amount of testing equipment available, not only to the clubs but more importantly to the whole nation. That is a problem Germany is not facing, I think the government also clarified that testing during the season will only count to 4% of the total available testing kits available (I can't find that article again) so it is not a case that the rest of the population will be denied testing in preference to the football clubs. The same is not true for other countries in Europe where testing might still be an issue and therefore giving preference to football players over the general population would be wrong. Germany is in a very stable situation with both the available facilities (testing, intensive care beds) and overall spread of the disease as the number of active cases have been dropping for 3 weeks.
Also, regarding the comparison between risks with playing football and general jobs, I'm not sure that playing football is more risky. Consider that at the start of the virus, players were tested positive but, if the risks were as high as everyone is saying, it should've then spread much more amongst opposition staff. That wasn't the case as only a few players eventually got the virus. That is only one side of the argument though, I think we have to realize that for regular people going back to work is a lot more important than footballers. Their daily living is much more at risk of being ruined by not returning to work than footballers so for them it's worth more to take the higher risk.
Again, in places like Germany, where the spread of the virus has had less negative consequences to the general population, it makes sense to try and take a few more, very controlled, risks to try and get normalcy back. You cannot though use it as a precedent for other countries that are facing a worse situation is many aspects such as the UK (lower testing, less available emergency facilities, higher fatality rate, increasing active cases). You have to be much more careful there.
Just posted the same. Its one of a few issues i have with footy starting now/soon
We've already dealt with your Halifax problem when you brought up Mcdonalds, it wasn't that long ago, you really should be able to remember it. But again, If someone working in a relatively closed space was positive then their workmates would be main contacts and they would isolate. Their branch may have to close for a fortnight. As time moves on that is how the incidence of infection will be reduced to a minimum.
Could you please capitalize a few extra words in the future, to make sure that your message comes across? Thanks in advance.
And what about the Halifax customers who don't have online banking, only account with money in is a savings book, have no means to get to the next nearest branch and need the money out to be able to eat for the next two weeks?
It’s amazing, since you posted this, every one of the ‘groups’ you referenced has made a post in this thread
Its weird, there’s a lot more rational/logical discussion in the actual covid-19 thread. This thread seems full of people who’d be afraid of their own shadows.
Who uses a savings book and has no online banking in this day and age ?
I don't know but their inconvenience for a fortnight is more important than attempting to stop the spread of a terrible disease that is causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people apparently.
You'd be surprised how many people still can't/refuse to get with the times, especially in rural areas.
Never said that.
