The Hotel End

Calling those Cobblers fans who yearn to be back at the mighty Sixfields stadium. Sign this petition and get the government to take action and look at ways to get fans back into stadiums.

Only problem is I struggle with the links (not computer savvy).

petition.parliament.uk search for allow football fans to attend matches at all levels.

I know some won't agree with this but if 50% capacity can go to the Royal Albert Hall to watch a concert indoors why can't people go back to football in an outdoor environment.

Whilst it would be great to see fans back in stadiums, I can't see it happening for a while yet......and it would involve a lot of work to be done in the current climate to be acheived "safely".
In the ground is not the problem, assuming limited capacity fans can be spread out and seated apart as per social distancing guidelines. Question here is does everyone have to wear masks?
How would something as simple as going to the toilet be controlled? Can everyone go at half time? How could you ensure distancing at the kiosks, when entering through the turnstiles and exiting at the end? Can football fans be "trusted" to follow the rules?

My main concern would be the cost of setting up this operation and ensuring everything went smoothly.

Lets assume that Sixfields is opened up to 2500 spectators....... how much revenue will the club bring in? From ticket sales the answer in NONE....season ticket holders would take those 2500 seats and they've already paid. Sure they may make a bit from kiosk sales (if anyone is allowed to visit them) car parks and programme sales would bring in a bit more, but then weigh that up against the costs of opening up, using stewards, marshalls, police, other matchday staff, even the logistics of sitting people together or apart dependent on circumstances.

Sadly, I think that unless grounds are opened up fully, ie no restrictions, with away fans being allowed to attend, and home fans allowed to buy the surplus tickets on the day/in advance, then it doesn't make financial sense to a club the size of ours and the losses currently being incurred would be greater if there was only a partial opening.

So, are you suggesting football fans can't be trusted but people attending an indoor concert can be trusted?

It sounds to me that sports fans are being made scapegoats. Don't forget stadiums are in the open air, where we've been told it's safest.

Perception wise then yes, the feeling might be that they can't be trusted! I'd also question whether stadiums are in the "open air" if there is a roof above, not open air in the way golf or horse racing would be for example.

My own feeling is that its not right that concert venues ARE open to the public, rather than it being wrong that sporting events ARE NOT open to the public........but that can change in a matter of weeks or months, dependent on progress made against COVID.....

The club recently said how much work had gone into making Sixfields Covid complient in readiness for the recently cancelled Hull test event. One way systems in and out of the ground, toilet arrangements etc. It was all going to be very safe, probably safer than going to the supermarket.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

It was wrong to let people into the Royal Albert Hall and I think the risk is too high (at the moment) to open up stadiums.

If it is too dangerous for me to see my grandchildren them mixing with hundreds of strangers can not be right.

Ifollow and patience I suggest.

STAY SAFE!

PS Going to the supermarket is essential going to sport is not.

I agree, probably safer.....safer than queuing in a airport to check in, to board, to go through passport control etc etc.....many different scenarios and locations where seemingly "less safe" conditions are accepted.

As you say though....a lot of work, and therefore a fair bit of expense had gone into getting Sixfields ready...and for what? An event that would have cost even more to stage with no financial benefit at all.

We are where we are unfortunately, and as per my original response unless ALL fans are allowed back into grounds and we are allowed to operate at FULL unrestricted capacity, then it doesn't make sense to do half measures at the moment. Wasn't it said last time we were in League 1 that we needed 5500-6000 crowds to break even? It wouldn't be be any different now would it?

I see your point, but in the test events that did take place recently as far as I know no cases were traced back to the event itself.

What particular efforts are being made for the RAH concert you have referred to ? My considerable interest in the cultural area tell me that the vast number of concert halls and associated performances remain closed to the public except via video link with performers socially distanced and audiences excluded.

Sorry, but I won't be signing this one. I'd love to get back to watching football, but in the big scheme of things it is "only a game". I've criticised that phrase in the past because it's so much more than that to all of us during normal times, but in these exceptional times is going to a match worth risking your own or someone else's life for? Nope, not for me.

When we've got things back under control I'll be there with a massive smile on my face, but until then it's iFollow for me.

You obviously didn't see the tweet from John Stapleton yesterday. That was retweeted by the club.

A concert next month will have 50% capacity.

But that's not the strongest argument and one the club wouldn't hide behind just because they have already had the season ticket money. Unless clubs get the fans in (when permitted) by investing and implementing the required measures to allow so, how many season ticket holders would be lost next season, probably dependant on refunds/goodwill from this one? That's before any additional paying customers. Without punters or a product you only need to look at Cineworld. At least football still has the product.
Most businesses that are continuing to operate have incurred significant additional costs to either remain open or re-open. Football clubs won't be any exception. In fact large gatherings in the public eye will be especially under scrutiny. They could do what some businesses (like hairdressers) are doing and add on a 'Covid fee' but you can imagine how that would go down!
The fall out from all of this is clearly going to impact far more important things than football and we're probably going to see a worldwide financial 'reset'.  

Basically agree with this plus another 14k infections today seems to me the pandemic is possibly getting of hand.

I agree with you.....the (un)certainty surrounding when people are going to be allowed in is likely to continue for a good while yet. There are numerous rumblings of discontent at clubs, not just ours, that season ticket holders have paid "over the odds" for the product they are getting. How can it be right for a S/T holder to be paying the equivalent of £18 per game and have it made to look like you are getting a freebie because IFollow isn't costing you anything.

Loyalty only goes so far, and the club has to weigh up the goodwill v financial argument......what football clubs can not do is take their bread and butter fans for granted. Are a family of three who have paid £1000 for three season tickets going to be happy with being huddled around one laptop watching a product they could have bought for £230?

Agreed

No, because that's me. Near on £1k for three season tickets, using one code for each home game  ::)

Love your optimism but it is misplaced given the current circumstances. Today’s infection figures are terrible and possibly we maybe facing lockdown. It’s irrelevant to quote other venues as different circumstances prevail. We have to go with the Scientists and Gov! 

I take it that's aimed at me?

Well Everbrite it looks like there's some momentum building, the club and EFL have now tweeted the petition.   

Genuine question then, other than your known feelings about getting back into grounds (as per the petition), what do you think NTFC specifically should be doing for you and other fans who feel the same way?

Are you at the stage yet where you feel a refund should be offered? If so, how much, and wouldn't it be difficult based on the fact they have actually supplied you with an alternative if still inferior product?
How long are you prepared to "wait it out" if you're currently ok with the state of play?

The whole topic fascinates me.....if someone went to the cinema but found the place was shut they'd ask for a refund, if someone had booked a holiday and found that the flights were no longer operating they'd apply for a refund, if someone ordered something from Amazon and then they said they couldn't deliver you'd get a refund......so many other similar situations.
I struggle to see why the current impasse seems acceptable to the die hard football supporter and why clubs don't seem to have addressed the issue other than to push for fans to be allowed back in.

As I said, genuine question, i'm not judging or anything, just interested to hear your thoughts.

That's a fair question GPC. I am prepared to wait until the club make their next statement and see what the state of play is at that point.

Kelvin Thomas recently said that more should be known in 2 or 3 weeks and suggested the club will announce something at that stage. The fact is they need to look after their season ticket holders one way or another. Maybe, a more simple way would be to give all home and away games free on Ifollow, I would still lose out on three season tickets but at least it would be a further gesture from the club.   

I presume EFL clubs are waiting to see what the agreement is between themselves and the Premier League for financial support. They might then be able to propose a generous settlement to ticket holders not allowed to enforce their rights to attend matches they have paid for.

In all honesty, season ticket holders should have the right to receive refunds for games they are not allowed to attend.

Life isn't fair (of course).

If current infection continues to surge am not sure if Gov will allow Football Grounds to reopen. Have to wait and see what happens. By the way this thread has not attracted too much support.

Approaching 100k signatures though, and early days.

Definitely won’t be signing.

Nor I.
As someone else has said, two wrongs do not make a right.
The ignorance and selfishness displayed by some is horrifying and will enable this Pandemic to endure.

I have not seen my Dad since Grimsby away on the 29 Feb, I would love to, but it isn't worth the risk. 
He is a STH and he, like me, will not be attending a game anytime soon.

I'm sorry to hear you haven't seen your Dad since February Deepcut.

Unfortunately, this virus will endure until there is a vaccine. Young people's attitude to party after pub closing time as shown on news coverage is shameful. However, watching a football match in a controlled environment is completely different.

Glad to hear all is ok with Pop 8)

The whole vaccine argument raises more questions than it gives answers.......who is going to take it? Presumably you are not advocating compulsory vaccination? Will it be successful? If so for how long? How will we know who has taken it and who hasn't? Stamps on foreheads? ID Cards?  Those who have had the vaccine will be able to do things whereas those who don't take it up will still be required to take precautions?

I believe the best hope is that this thing blows itself out after a year like SAR's did. Either that or it will have "gone through" everyone in a shortish space of time.......

My view is that I would urge anyone to follow the expert advice and comply with current directives. This is not the time to be cavalier or follow some gut instinct or possibly ill informed campaign. Follow the guidelines or people die, it’s that simple, and no individual has the right to make a knee jerk decision when the impacts on others are so severe. Do your own research using a trusted source like the NHS and the BMA and commonsense should point you in the right direction. Here is a NHS letter from the Chief Executive Sir Simon Stevens & Chief Operating Officer Amanda Pritchard back in April & July regarding the challenges faced ahead by the NHS. Put that in the context of today? Don’t be a part of making the already extremely difficult what may become impossible? https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/publication/second-phase-of-nhs-response-to-covid-19-letter-from-simon-stevens-and-amanda-pritchard/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/07/20200731-Phase-3-letter-final-1.pdf

Signed.

The Germans, who are putting us to shame with basically every element of their Covid response from travel restrictions to test and trace, have shown it's possible to get crowds of up to 10k into football stadia in a safe, socially distanced way.

As others have pointed out in this thread, if the situation isn't resolved soon, clubs will be under pressure to start dishing out partial / full refunds to season ticket holders. That's money that will have been accounted for in building squads this season. There are dozens of people at each and every league club - players, coaches, behind-the-scenes staff - who are relying on that money to pay their wages, particularly with the furlough scheme winding down.

Fans coming back to grounds ASAP is crucial to the survival of clubs like ours and other countries have provided us with a blueprint to follow in achieving that safely. This is doable. Sign the petition and help make it happen.

Maybe Corona is a joke?

Maybe all Gammon-Heads live.

I want people at football games.

I too have signed. Pretty pointless debating the whys and why nots on here though, we all have different views on COVID etc!

Just wanted to make one point. It is hardly surprising that Germany have been so successful thus far at suppressing the virus. My view on this specific point is that having been to Germany many times, it is evident in every day life how they as a population comply with rules. Take pedestrian crossings. You can be standing waiting for 2 minutes to be allowed to cross the road, even though there is absolutely zero traffic coming from miles either side. Then as soon as the green man shows, they all cross, very methodically, no rushing, pushing etc. Its quite surreal. It amuses me every time I go there!

We Brits do what we want, when we want. As such its no surprise that our fight with COVID is far less successful than it is when say comparing us to Germany.

The latin countries all hug each other, which is why Italy, and Spain have struggled. France is not dissmilar.

Yanks take no notice of anyone.

China/South Asians just do as they are told, or they are shot.

Scandinavians are usually fairly cold, unemotional people so social distancing is second nature to them anyway.

Indians/Brazilians/Mexicans  - all emotionally driven, very family orientated etc.

It never seizes to amaze me how we compare ourselves to other countries fighting the pandemic. A few minutes thought, and its obvious that each countries unique DNA either helps or hinders their efforts!

 

Excellent post...generalization it maybe in respect of the countries listed but you've pretty much summed up the attitudes and levels of compliance....and you are right in that we can't compare ourselves to any other country....then skew the argument dependent on which way we are leaning on a given day.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in Japan, when I first visited there way before covid one of the things that stuck me was the amount of people especially on public transport wearing face masks. This is because if you have flu or a cold you wear one to not spread your germs to others. There is also virtually no litter there, because even if there’s no bin you take it home, in the uk I’ve seen people walk straight past a bin and throw rubbish on the floor as if they get some warped prestige out of it. Like you alluded to, there is definitely a cultural aspect to rates of covid infections and deaths, I’m sad to say in Asia there is far more respect for other people than in the UK which is why they have suffered less.

Signed it
I understand people wont want to attend which is fine, opening stadia doesnt mean you have to attend. I know some wont go to tesco etc still.

What I cant understand, and the basis for the petition is how the government can encourage people to go and sit together inside (cinema) but not outside. Arguments about football fans congregating in bars is easy to manage. Cinema visitors will queue for popcorn etc, people queue in tesco, the 02 is even opening. If the government think its safe to go to social events then no reason not to go to open air events, football, rugby, cricket, etc

Also football stadia will have CCTV so easy to find and fine anyone who doesnt comply at clubs such as ours arent going to risk massive fines or bans from crowd by not having strict protocols in place.

 ;D  I lived in Germany for fifteen years, there are many other examples of similar adherence to the rules which made it such an enjoyable place to live.  My kids grew up there and when we moved back they were shocked at the attitude, the lack of respect shown towards others and any authority, by the people in England.  We had to 'wean' them back into the country.  ;)
It is a different culture and it is not surprising that they are managing the virus considerably better than 'we'.

Agree with some of that except Germany has a growing problem; otherwise they have done ok upto now.

I take the point that cultural differences might make an impact, but I'm not sure you can entirely explain away the  discrepancies in countries' Covid responses with sweeping generalisations of hundreds of millions of people. It was never a given that Germany or Japan or NZ would have a better time of it than us - their outbreaks still had to be managed effectively.

These countries make decisions based on evidence, not based on politics, assumptions or face-saving PR. That's why fans are back in the Bundesliga - test events proved it could be done safely. We have had a number of test events with up to 1,000 fans at sports grounds going off without a hitch, and non-league clubs have also shown it can be done, but for our government, assumptions about how fans will behave and the fear of a negative public perception seem to outweigh the evidence of their own eyes.

As a balance on Covid 19 in Germany Angel Markel dilemma is discussed in this article in the Spectator

 " https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/germany-s-reckless-coronavirus-response-is-over"

"https://www.dw.com/en/germany-bans-fans-until-end-of-october-following-covid-19-spike/a-54713242"

One thing I do wonder is if spectators in stadiums is deemed safe enough in the near future. A lot of northern England is still under local lockdown with no sign of this changing and so obviously fans would not be allowed back in these area’s. Would we end up with many northern clubs going to the wall with southern clubs surviving?.

As stated earlier, expert professional opinion will dictate policy not a petition, and people will just have to comply? If it’s deemed safe then fine, if it’s not then it’s not. However, if anyone thinks the general expert consensus will be driven by a petition or that they are likely to change current policy anytime soon then they are misguided? As frustrating as it is society cannot afford to have hospitals and medical services over run, either in human or financial terms? Being in one of the worlds strictest lockdowns for a few months has given a slightly different perspective on what transmission can lead to. We went from a peak of 750 new cases a day to a daily average of 9.7 as of today. Every cluster now comes under intense media focus. Just one case in a butchers shop has led to 31 connected cases in a matter of a week or so. The idea that any large gatherings inside or out will enable the authorities to control this is unlikely to get either an endorsement or a safe result for any length of time without a reversal? Probably not what people want to hear, but it’s just an observation taking into account what has happened here. Spectators at sporting events will almost certainly not be endorsed and even if it is, there will undoubtedly be the aforementioned  reversal as the UK authorities continue to struggle to deal with rising numbers? Personally I think spectators will remain off the agenda, and frankly it is unlikely that competitive games will continue much longer unless the rate of infection can be reversed fairly quickly? Just my opinion on what’s likely to happen, and not necessarily my opinion on what should happen, I’ll leave that to the better qualified and informed.

The attitudes around this virus are highlighted in this short thread. Some are completely paranoid, others obviously not so troubled.

Therein lies the problem, as much as you want others to follow sensible precautions, not all will. If you are uncomfortable about coming into contact with others in a public arena now, you probably wont change your mind in just a few months.

Anyone waiting for a silver bullet vaccine fix forget it, you'll have a very long wait, there wont be one whatever you doctors think. This is never going away so the ability to manage and rapid test is the future. 

Statistically you still have more chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from covid so let others go to football if they wish, you can stay at home safe in the knowledge that by staying in you avoided almost certain death.

Largely agree with the sentiment but I think petitions such as this will influence government decisions. It might not change the overall stance but will be a factor in reviews.
The reason I signed is I cant understand why sports stadiums cant open but cinemas, music venues etc can. I've read the arguments (such as pubs and on the concourses etc) but thats why we continue the trials. If the stadiums or local areas are overrun then stop, as I said before, there is CCTV so if people don't comply they can be banned from future games or fined.

Signing that petition will have the same effect as pi55ing in the sea.......NOTHING
stadiums won’t open this season, there were nearly 15000 new cases yesterday get used to the new normal.

I can't let that one slide. Cite your source, or show your workings please

You tell ‘em Manny  ;D

I think there's a world of difference between paranoia and due care. If I caught it, chances are I'd be fine; I'm in my forties, I've got mild asthma but other than that I've got no underlying health conditions that I'm aware of. Then again, nor has one of my colleagues and she ended up in hospital, unable to breathe unassisted and with all manner of drugs being pumped into from a drip, and she's only in her thirties! Fortunately she was discharged yesterday but it goes to show, it affects people in different ways and there are no guarantees.

That's an aside though, because the main reason I don't want to go to a match yet is that my parents and in-laws are in their seventies and eighties and much more likely to suffer more serious consequences if they get it. They want to see their grand kids and found it very difficult not seeing them during full lockdown.

If we all go along to the football and a few of us pick it up - which statistically you HAVE to be more likely to do if you are in the company of 1000+ other people, outdoors or not - that's a few more people who can pass it on to others. If I catch it and, like 8 out of 10 others suffer no symptoms, I could quite easily pass it on to my parents while taking the kids to see them. Equally, if my dad pops to the corner shop to buy some milk and passes someone in the doorway who was at the game then he could just as easily pick it up from him. Granted, that bloke might have caught it from anywhere but ultimately it's about limiting risk; both me and some hypothetical bloke in a doorway are less likely to have caught covid in the first place if we haven't been in a large group of other people, many of whom are in the demographic where they won't be seriously affected by it and probably won't even know they have it!

It's not just about looking out for my dad either, because I could have it and not know, sneeze, touch a handrail as I leave the ground and then some other poor sod following me down the stairs runs his hand along the same rail and goes to see his elderly parents or grandparents - there's a degree of social responsibility, and we all have to play our part in that.

According to a leaked email NHS have been told to prepare for roll out of covid 19 vaccine next month and 5 mass vaccination centres to be in place by xmas.
My view is that if restricted numbers can be allowed in theatres, cinemas, tv studio audiences etc in confined spaces it makes no sense not to allow them for outside sporting events. You would think that outside events would be allowed before enclosed events.
What has happened to the great british bulldog spirit? Allow restricted numbers to attend and leave it to individual choice if fans wish to attend.

That's fine if the attendees then go home and don't go anywhere else for a couple of weeks, less fine if they then go to the shops and breathe all over some poor old bugger who has no one to do their shopping for them; you can decide to take a risk for yourself, taking a risk on someone else's part is irresponsible.

How is it any different to people attending inside events, going to the supermarket, restaurant or pub?. They are not expected to go home and self isolate for 2 weeks.

Because we go to a supermarket largely out of necessity unless you get some weird kick out of looking at cans of beans.
Going to a football match should be considered a luxury in these times.
It's about social responsibility, it's about putting the onus on the individual, hoping that he/she is mature enough to understand and implement it.
If we as a nation are found not to be as responsible as a nation like Germany, and the evidence that our closest Anglo saxon cousins are miles ahead of us on this is already out there, we shall very soon have that individual responsibility taken away from us and have it replaced with another full lockdown.

Precisely this.

I absolutely agree with all of that, we all have a duty of care, although not everybody does care, this is the problem. Throw a party and everyone's guard is down. We have to be realistic its not going away soon and we simply cant keep the cork in the bottle for much longer.

Confidence is the key issue. If everyone could freely go and attend matches from this weekend would you go? I can genuinely see some people never being comfortable around crowds or large gatherings again.

Rebel wanted stats! 1 million covid deaths from 7,800,000,000 = 0.0128% The chances of getting struck by lightning in your lifetime roughly 1 in 7000 so marginally more at 0.0143% Or how about a whopping 0.4% chance of scooping 6 numbers on the lottery, about the same as Racic scoring a hat trick this season. Its worth noting however 136% of stats are made up.

The conclusion, don't stand under a tree in a storm with a scratchcard surrounded by unwashed pooh fans without masks.

Going to the cinema, theatre, pub or restaurant is not a necessity so why are you not insisting people self isolate after going. As I said this is no different to attending an outside event, let people have the choice of whether to attend or not. Some of you clearly do not want to go so stay at home, others may want to go and if they do attend they are no more risk to others than the people who attend the indoor functions who are not required to self isolate afterwards.

I wasn't genuinely suggesting everyone should be made to self-isolate for two weeks after going, I just pointed out that if you weren't going to do that then there's an increased risk. Personally, I don't think theatres or cinemas are a good idea at the moment either. I have been out for a meal a few times since things reopened, but I've chosen small venues that are using social distancing so there was no more than a dozen or so other people in the venue. Yes, it's a risk, but it's a lesser risk than mingling with ~1000 people, even if it is outdoors.

It must be a British thing then (not to have crowds). The international between Portugal and Spain had a socially distanced crowd in attendance, and Portugal is still on the UK quarantine list as infections are still high  ::)

Portugal's death rate is significantly lower than ours though.

Have a feeling that Rebel might disprove your facts on short time,
.

Wrong my friend. 1mill against a global population of 8 billion but only a fraction of those 8billion have upto now contracted Covid. If lightening never happened across 95% of the worlds inhabitants your analogy might have greater credence.
I agree that 136% of stats are made up though.

But they're on the UK quarantine list, yes?

Even if you were allowed to attend games and all of the other activities that we are being prevented/deterred  from doing, if the risk is still as it is described by the scientists and professors, would you still want to put yourself at mortal risk by placing yourself in those environments?

COVID-19 isn't a game, this is a matter of life and death for a great number of people and some of you are complaining that you aren't allowed to increase the possibility of killing yourself and/or others?  (The others being the elderly (or at risk) friends and relatives that you will come into contact with after you have selfishly attended one or many of those events.)

I know the answer for a great number is yes, because we see it most days/weekends on the news of the selfish doing what they want without any thought of the consequences of their actions. The North of England will soon be in another complete lock down (which will also be ignored), whilst the 'R' Rate will continue to rise over them and the rest of country.

The real problem is that nobody knows what to do about it. One day a decision will have to be made because people want to live their lives. At the moment it seems this trickling effect of infection is part of the 'herd immunity' process mentioned early doors but nobody knows if that works either. All we have is science so we must follow the experts for now but I reckon folk need to think up a new system cos the market economy ain't going to function soon.
God is Science.

Worth a try anyway!

Don't forget lightning can strike twice.  ;)  (Lightening is something Asian ladies go for.)

To repeat the point I tried to make earlier. As contributors to a football forum we can continue to argue and/or sign petitions to attempt to influence policy regarding the dangers and likelihood of transmitting Covid 19? Alternatively we can comply with the directives of expert medical/professional opinion. I continue to recommend complying with the latter? Nothing I have read on here has convinced me to consider any alternatives suggested by the former as a viable or reasonable proposal?

Yep, I struggle with that one also.
So much for the 'old alliance' eh?

lol, is that so? I like an asian lady myself...Not any one in particular you understand? Mrs CJ wouldnt appreciate that too much.
The fairer the better then, a bit like when porcelain skin over here was considered the sign of an upper class lady since it was obvious from it that she didn't have to till the fields.  ;D

There are no medical experts of covid as nobody has experience of it before so it's advice based on predictions and many of those predictions have been way off the mark. Dr Doomsday, Dr Sean Conley or Dr Inthemiddle?

It's the madness that will kill us.

True, but their opinion is likely to be more considered, relevant and valid than most?

Little bit dramatic, that. No-one is demanding the right to kill their elderly neighbours. They're simply asking that professional sport gets equitable treatment to other industries, in terms of getting the punters back in, in a safe and socially distanced way. The 'scientists and professors' aren't demanding that we all lock ourselves in doors and avoid social contact; on the contrary, they're encouraging people to do those things provided that the necessary precautions are taken.

And let's not act like locking down is a catch-all, consequence-free solution to the problem. People's livelihoods are on the line in the next few months, especially with the furlough scheme winding down. Going back into hibernation over the winter would be absolutely disastrous for this country, as would letting the virus rip. A middle ground is the way forward, and that means finding a way to let people live their lives as normally as possible whilst keeping the case numbers under NHS capacity.

Oh yes, they're obsessed with it here, whitening cream everywhere for for the ladies of Bangkok! I'm sure Mrs CJ is made of the finest porcelain, they would love her.

If you would like some help around the house let me know  ;)

Do you have any family and/or relatives?

Very valid, but playing devil’s advocate by that hypothesis it comes down to limiting activities to those deemed essential only? Anything considered non essential increases the risk of transmission and ultimately jeopardises the continuation of the essential?

Of course I do. I worry about my elderly relatives contracting the disease but I also worry about my younger relatives and friends losing their jobs - and by extension, their homes - in the next few months if this madness continues. There is no good solution here, see? The least worst option is to try and find a middle ground.

Point taken, but I'd say keeping people in work and receiving their wages is essential, especially with the furlough scheme about to go and the replacement scheme reliant on people doing a reasonable chunk of their usual hours. We're staring down the barrel of a US-style employment collapse in the next few months unless we pull out all the stops as a society to find Covid-secure ways of doing things. And if you think compliance with the rules is bad now, wait until people feel they have no choice but to avoid self-isolating if they want to pay the bills.

Spot on Nut.

I have to say the debate here is of a far higher standard than the one so many politicians have indulged in (which has often just been point scoring). Well done all.

 

Normally you would think so but not in this peculiar instance. Go for the bloke in the pub.

Luckily all ours are still open, mask free and with unwashed trustafarian hippies mingling freely.

To be honest its pretty simple, it's a pandemic caused by a previously unknown virus where not one medical expert has the answer, all we know is it spreads fast and carries a higher risk of fatality than other common viruses. Close as many borders as you can, totally limit human movement and infections will go down until you can work it out. It's not brain surgery just bloody common sense.

The UK's doors were wide open for months, still are. Here they shut every border, blocked every fence to everyone, even their own citizens have had difficulty returning, some are still stranded abroad. We're all starving but hey ho only 59 recorded deaths.

Build a wall around Northampton, don't let anyone in or out for a month, quarantine the infected zombies and then you can all go to the football safely. Medical "experts" are simply managing human interaction at this point, the only real treatment being prescribed right now.

Make it up as you go along..

I think the range of opinions on here proves your point.
If we all returned to normal life the virus may(?) burn itself out in about 12 months, but would we tolerate the number of deaths that could cause?
If an effective vaccine is produced that may(?) have the virus under control in about 12 months, with fewer deaths.
In the meantime we have testing which can give results nobody can be confident in. If a test is negative, that may be false (according to the scientists). A positive test may also be false, having antibodies doesn't guarantee that you are immune and you may still carry the virus, nobody knows. So what exactly does testing tell us?
The best way to stay safe is to isolate for ever!
As you said there is no good solution.

The Czechs have just suspended all culture and sport for two weeks for Covid reasons.

The best way forwards is for those in the pharma industry to come up with an effective prophylactic drug sooner rather than later. Everyone seems to keep banging on about a vaccine, well fcuk that, we need headache pills like no other.
I think we have six months to achieve a significant pharmacological step forward that will then become avaliable to the first world (sorry on advance) later next year.
If we haven't come close by then this thing, one way or another, will run its course throughout mankind, with or without its blessing. For now though, I say we all remain patient a little while longer.

Dramatic? Maybe, but not untrue.
I know what you are asking/saying, but those other industries shouldn't be doing what they are doing either.  Two wrongs do not make one right.
I agree that locking down isn't a catch all however a resolution could be accomplished a lot quicker if people adhered to the advice and not so blatantly ignored or disregarded it. 
Short term pain, long term gain.

The economy is a major concern but as has been said, there are people who have to balance the decisions on behalf of the whole country and I'm not just talking about the politicians.  There are a number of senior people from different walks of life and from all parts of the country who are involved in that decision making, it isn't purely a political judgement.
My son has been directly affected, in both employment and financial terms, by this crisis since the very beginning.

The R Rate reached 0.5 in many parts of the country during the original lock down, it has now risen above 1.5 and in some cases above 2.0.  We cannot remain at that level without additional pain to the country and the NHS.

Or do we abandon all, go back to how it was (but wearing masks), hope for herd immunity to kick in and leave it to natural selection and survival of the fittest?

Haha, now that is a very tempting offer.
I'm happy to report that Mrs CJ is in fact not at all porcelain skinned, she could in fact be an agricultural fen dweller such are her skin tones. She's not though, it comes from her mother's european roots.

You talk about people 'not following the guidance', but the guidance is that the hospitality and entertainment industry can open up again in a safe way and you're happy to disregard that guidance straight off the bat? Is there any evidence that local lockdown restrictions on those industries are actually working in bringing case numbers down? Not that I can see, and yet real people are suffering hardship as a result. A close mate of mine is a pub landlord in Leicester, has lost thousands during this pandemic, government help was very slow to come and he's been living hand to mouth for months now. We have to continue easing restrictions as much as we can - not doing so will put people in a position of incredible hardship over this winter, especially without the furlough safety net. Tightening restrictions has to be a last resort and cannot be based on a hunch or an assumption that it might help reduce cases.

It's also not a binary decision between shutting everything down or 'going back to normal with masks on and hoping for the best' - only an idiot would ask for the latter. It's about restrictions that are proportionate to the risk, and test events at sports grounds have not produced any Covid spike that I'm aware of. They should continue - if we can find a way of making them work it could save thousands of jobs without costing any lives.

Well said Nut. The Governments response to those who disagree, and there are many including eminent scientists, is that they want to "let it rip"which is puerile nonsense . Put a lid on a can of worms and in two months the worms will be dead. Put the lid on a can of the virus and it will jump right out again as soon as the lid is taken off. We need to learn to live with it rather than hope for a vaccine which may or may not happen and perhaps look more closely at the Sweden model.

Also just want to second this point. We're all Cobblers at the end of the day - let's hope we still have a club to go and watch once we're allowed back in, whenever that may be!

Lots of people go on about the "Sweden model"......

On the raw figures alone Sweden (9,641 cases per million population) has a higher infection rate than the UK (8,264 cases per million population) however its death figure (582 per million) is lower than ours (627)... theres not a lot in it either way.

Apart from their economy isn't trashed!

??

Everyone's economy is trashed, even Sweden suffered an 8.6% fall in GDP in the second quarter of 2020, their worst results in modern history. (4Q 2008 global financial crisis was only 3.8%)

How do you explain the surge in the Nasdaq? Not strictly a mirror of the economy but at its highest pre Covid on feb18 it closed at 9732 yet now as I write its sitiing at 11404. That's an increase of 18% in 8 months.

Yep, OK GPC, perhaps I should have said "relatively".

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stocks-market-outlook-record-highs-disconnect-sharp-economic-decline-why-2020-8-1029492559#

That article tries to explain the phenomena!

Tries, being the operative word!

Agree with you on Sweden ; it’s all ice and wilderness😄.
Lots of good comments.It comes down to common sense and the Government needs to grasp the initiative and ensure it has the cooperation of all UK regions and agree a policy. Political point scoring on both sides is a no no , doesn’t help at all.

The real lesson is how we got here in the first place - that is at this moment of time. After lock time come July and August the relaxations followed. Even some crowds were let in! What is noticeable is the amount of young people who have been diagnosed with Covid 19 ably backed up by the Students! There is no point on joining in the blame game! The situation is clearly going in the wrong direction and drastic action is required - its a no brainer! Clearly a significant proportion of the UK population has not followed the Gov advice  - not even the simple three has been followed; wash yr hands, keep your distance and be alert. Not very clever is it!

I think the two biggest issues that no politician is willing to confront: it's all very well them telling us the 'R' rate is up 'blah' blah' 'blah!' but the simple fact is that for months barely no one outside of the sick, or healthcare workers, was being tested. A load more tests are being carried out now, and so more people are being pronounced positive. But it all comes down to percentages: if you test fifteen thousand people and eight thousand are positive then that is a problem. But if you test one-hundred-twenty-thousand and eight thousand are positive then it's not too much of an issue.
The other big issue is the percentage of false positives. Name one situation in business where a success rate of around 70% would be deemed acceptable? More reliable testing, along with a workable track-and-trace system, and people might actually start to understand exactly what the governments long term aims are.

ETA: Even if you received a positive result and could assume the test was reliable (which they are not), it still wouldn't mean that you were - or would become - infectious. Multitudes of viruses exist in our bodies at any given time, but having trace elements in RNA strands doesn't give any proof of cell infection. PCR was never meant to be used for widespread testing (it was designed as a laboratory aid), so it's no real wonder the method is proving so unreliable.

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr04gHbP5MQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1n23QZ_JM7azjvWELsk5jpFehZ6C-D19RbxvCJ4H8UlcIsrTW0uv_Aw90

Follow the consensus of expert medical opinion? I would just add that to the best of my knowledge no one in Australia has been jailed for not wearing a mask so it does perhaps cast a bit of doubt over the accuracy of the claims?

Good debate. ;)
Why don't we let all those who want to, go back into these environments and see how they get on, whilst the rest of us who are more risk averse watch on from the 'sidelines'?  Although the Universities didn't do such a good job of it recently with their get everyone in together?
As long as those deemed 'at risk' avoid any sort of contact with those who have returned for a period of 'incubation', that should be a good indication as to where we can move on to in the future? 

Well I never thought I would be at odds with Melly but if questioning the accuracy of claims how about Dimwhitty suggesting that transmission rates in hospitality is 32% when it was only between 3-4% before evidence to support the curfew was demanded. The Government are set on one course and they will manipulate and massage the figures to support their actions. Lt Gruber claiming not to know the false positive rate but insisting it was very low is just one example of the wool being pulled over our eyes, a false positive rate of 1% means that approx. 2,500 tests are wrong every day

Time and time frames have relevance in statistics. World war two killed way more than Covid currently has. Does that mean when i wake up every day in 2020 i am more at risk of dying in world war 2 than i am from covid 19? no it doesn't.

To be fair whilst admittedly a bit sceptical Im not claiming anyone is wrong or right? As a general rule the safest bet is to follow the majority of the expert opinion. Doesn't mean its always correct, doesn't mean its not without risk? However, generally speaking the percentages are massively stacked in favour of following the aforementioned majority medical opinion? And that's medical opinion rather than political. Perhaps the majority of medical opinion will change over the coming months and our learned friend on YouTube will be fully vindicated? When that happens I'll be the first to rip off my mask and skip through the streets hugging random strangers. Until then I'm playing the percentages and sticking with the directives.

Loved this!
Agree with people above that this has probably been the most balanced debate on here or about Covid anywhere. I dont disagree with anyone on here who doesnt support the petition or the idea in general.
If the government decided that no Entertainment (cinemas, music venues etc) was safe nor would I. But I cannot understand why they stopped the trials or a slow roll out. If it doesnt work then you have proof it was the right decision. By that I mean if more than is considered safe try to get into the pubs, or large groups on concourses etc. Could even state some games that are high risk cant have fans. Move kick off forward to 1 or 2pm to limit drinking time if thats a risk. Lots can be done to minimise risks
The pubs at sixfields may have to hire more door staff to limit numbers but I bet that would be offset by the revenue from beer or food so starts to build the local economy as well.

That was as tedious as a bad half against Hartlepool on a wet tuesday evening at Victoria Park.
I think we should separate his claim that the PCR is a worthless test (the crux of his argument and the focus of his legal stance) from his false (or true) claims regarding the virus known as Covid19.
He states that death rates during the spring part of the pandemic did not rise above expected but without any explanation , simply stating it has been 'proven'. Has it? I thought the opposite, that it is pretty much the only reliable data that something IS going on.
The PCR test might be unreliable but maybe its use is for reasons of it being the most reliable of an unreliable choice of tests?
An unreliable PCR test does not mean there is some kind of conspiracy going on between the global pharma and tech companies, who are seeking to control us (having first stolen all of our fingerprints)
He claims Tedros is a philosopher. He is not, thats totally inaccurate as far as I can see. He has a doctorate, an undergraduate degree and a masters non of which are from the field of philosophy.
The claim that you go straight to prison if caught not wearing a mask in Oz is wrong, as confirmed by Melbourne.

There is an inconsistency in his speech which undermines any arguement that he might have.

He also seems to have big  issues with the Robert Koch Institute.

Knockingon mentions DimWhitty. In the last staged three pronged televised government special he claimed there was no increase in the rate of covid infection amongst school age children (thus justifying the keeping open of schools). I think what he actually meant was there was no change in the detectable rate of infection.
This is an example of our government applying data in order to get a across which justifies a decision they have taken.

Gerry Spence on the bookshelf there...is he comparing himself to the Silkwood guy? Is that the subliminal message here?
Or is he a just a 'legalled up' version of David Icke?

Blimey Jolly had no idea you were a scientist!

Hats off for that article CJ and look forward to a responce from Jolly, Knocking and even Melly!

Well, Mr Everbrite, my response is simply that I am a Lockdown Sceptic. Talk of conspiracy theories tend to undermine what I think are logical arguments against lockdown restrictions, likewise David ickes' name cropping up!

I have no problem with those who wish to take precautions which I feel are over the top, but I heavily resent the restrictions on personal liberties which would have seemed laughable not twelve months ago. I think I am old and wise enough to make my own judgements on that.

It comes down to what represents a proportional response to the risk involved and we shall obviously have to beg to differ on this otherwise it has the potential to overtake the redevelopment thread!

We all would agree that nothing, not even Covid, is as important than the East Stand, wouldn't we?  ;D ;D ;D

Agreed.

ETA: I'm not a virus sceptic, but I think the way this is being managed is a load of bollocks. Let's be honest, Bojo spent four months telling us not to bother wearing masks as it doesn't do any good. And, yes, I understand the mask is supposed to be about stopping the wearer from spreading germs, but the simple fact is people are touching their faces a whole lot more when out in public than they ever were before the mask law came in. And touch is one of the biggest factors in spreading germs: it always has been. Personally, I think it'd make more sense for everyone to be wearing gloves rather than masks.

My neighbor is a Crystal Palace fan. They were hoping to get one of their recent games (Everton, I think?) into the 'trialing 1000 fans' program. Then the government canceled that option. My neighbor's brother still lives in the area, and he reckons one of the local pubs admitted 430 (table seated) fans into the pub to watch the game. 430 people in a boozer or 1000 in a 25,000 capacity stadium? The logic makes no sense, and this is a big part of the problem.

Actually it’s not strictly true CJ. Mad Mandy in Frankston technically did get thrown in the cells for not wearing a mask. She claims to be a Sovereign Citizen, which apparently means that according to her she is not subject to any state or federal laws. As a result she went into a local cafe not wearing a mask. As the owner could be shut down as a result they offered her a free mask and demanded she wear it. At which Mandy went bonkers and started coughing in the face of customers. When the police turned up she started screaming rape and then attacked one of the officers. So technically she did get locked up for not wearing a mask, she claims she has rights and of other people are affected by her right to freedom then it’s not her problem, seems fair?

A famous manager once said "football is not a matter of life and death, it is more important than that". I would love to know if he would still make that statement today.

Since you put it like that Melbourne, absolutely. No idea what the police were thinking.
I would add, seriously, that I absolutely see the paradox between not allowing socially distanced fans into an open spacced area to watch football but allowing the RNB to strut their stuff at Sadler's Wells in front of an audience or anything involving an indoor audience of 100's/1000's, and I agree the government is making it up as they go along without a defined plan.  But I dont think a bad decision from the government allowing them to prance around on stage makes it right to insist we allow audiences back into football grounds. I'm exceptionally critical of our approach to Covid generally, we couldnt have got it more wrong on a lot of instances imo, the one on wearing masks in public on particular. Why did it take eight months for Boris to realize what much of Asia has been doing for past twenty years would not harm and in fact possibly help. Good shout from Jolly, let's all wear gloves in public. Where's the hardship in either if it saves lives?

Nope, he's dead. Has been for some years now.  ;D

I think the mask debate is worthwhile and not one I've read much about.

Scenario 1: People don't wear masks, don't feel that sense of protection it gives you and tend to maintain a greater social distance naturally in case Joe Bloggs breathes on them.

Scenario 2: People wear masks, don't bother what kind of mask/face covering. Stick it in their back pocket between multiple uses. Fail to handle it correctly, touch their face to adjust it whilst talking etc. Don't always wash their hands every time they touch multiple shared surfaces. Have a 'false' sense of protection and don't think about social distancing as much. PS. adding to the environmental carnage by disposing of hundreds of millions of throwaway masks.
 
Scenario 3: Use your mask correctly, maintain your social distance, wash you hands frequently, avoid going to places you don't really need to go.

There is a definite argument that scenario 1 is safer to protect from infection verses scenario 2. I'm not seeing much of scenario 3 happening which is clearly the safest option. The vast majority of us fall into scenario 2.

The problem with gloves is that they don't stop you spreading germs from surface to surface. For them to be effective in stopping the spread of the virus, you'd be having to be changing them and putting new gloves on every time you touched something - even your own clothing - otherwise you're risking cross-contamination. Unless you're in an operating theatre that's just not practical. You're also relying on people not touching their face at all whilst wearing the gloves in order for it to have any effect. Washing / sanitising hands frequently is much more effective.

Just sit tight
We will start vaccinations in nov/dec.

There is zero chance of fans getting back.into grounds when the vaccinations are weeks away from being rolled out.

Nor should there be.

understand where you're coming from re gloves, masks and cross contamination, but if you entered an already sterile area like a football ground or indoor venue that isnt in continuous use, would their use make spread of the virus
definitely easier, maybe easier, no difference, maybe harder, definitely harder? A lot depends on the education and adherence to other guidlines like face touching of course, but I personally dont see that valid an argument for gloves and masks worsening that situation. If theres a chance it helps, why not insist they are both worn?

You are entitled to an opinion and remain consistent to that opinion. Wish you good luck in current and developing Pandemic situation. Surprisingly my view on the East Stand is at best 'on the fence'. There are seats in there and attendance is not effected.  Happy just to look at it !

Basing on my view on use of masks

On Sc.1   If only
     Sc.2   School kids/students perhaps
     Sc.3   For instance women, Football Referees!, OAP's etc are more careful so would go for Sc 3

You Guys discussing Big Mandy of 'This Country' - extraordinary!  ;D 'Tis a laugh tho'.

I'm pretty sure that someone else must have challenged this ridiculous statement, but I will, as I can't be @rsed to read the whole thread.

Being the diligent pedant that I can be, I did a bit of light research into lightning strikes. There are around 260,000 people struck by lightning each year, of which roughly 6000 are fatalities.

Given that the global death toll of COVID 19 has passed the 1 million mark; do you have total confidence in your assertion that "Statistically you still have more chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from covid".  

So its true then......because if you lived for 80 years then 20.8 million people would have been struck by lightning over that time.......

Here you go...

Those death tolls you quote are 'COVID related', and that's a whole different ball game. ;)

 ;D

Or if you were really unlucky you would have been struck by lightning 20.8 million times.

Don't worry folks you'll be able to attend the panto this Christmas  :o, but football....   

I love the panto. My kids think it is s***e but I still make them go.

That would only work if the two time lines were the same. E.g. COVID remains prevalent throughout your entire lifetime.

How many people will have died from COVID if it’s around for the same 80 years?

I'm going to have to pull you up on this Guru Tel as technically I'm correct.

Both scenarios depend hugely on where you are.

For example, I'm on an small island with just a few hundred people, all free of covid yet rife with other infectious diseases, mostly STD's.

Unless you are in quarantine, I am less likely to catch it than you, doing your weekly vegan shopping in Waitrose. However if I go climb a coconut tree in one of the numerous tropical storms, the odds sway back in your favour. Due to climatic changes we can also expect regular severe weather conditions so being so diligent I would re-point your chimney for good measure.

As you said it's only a million or so dead or 0.0128% The question for all of us is will it make two million? Malaria consistently kills nearly half a million people every year but there's pant wetting as it doesn't spread in the High Street.

covid infections may go down or slow but more people than ever will be struck by lighning.

As this thread is essentially about letting fans back in, what impact would it really have?

We all know that cleanliness and good personal hygiene practices help in preventing the spread of covid. Lets face it some grounds up north haven't had hand washing facilities until recently, there's never quite the same queue for the sinks as there is the troughs, and that's in the ladies!

If all stadiums opened again next week to 2000 home supporters and bearing in mind today's opposition, which club has the filthiest fans?

Who would see the quickest rise in infections?







   

I'm not arguing for or against it. I work in healthcare and I have had it. Whether or not that means I am vulnerable to it again or not I don't know. However, putting us aside, the argument has never been about the likelihood of dying, it has always been about the capacity of the services we have to cope with, both currently and in the long term.

Whether we like it or not, football is not simply about a group of independents sitting in a stadium 2m apart from each other. Supporters will increase the footfall on public transport, access and egress and in the surrounding bars and restaurants.

Putting aside the million or so who have already died (figures that I’m sure are up for debate) there will be hundreds of millions who will be moderately to severely affected by this virus. A huge amount of these would not have fell into the high risk groups, but are now showing up months after not knowing they had been infected, with issues that are directly attributed to this virus. The effect of this virus will be with us for years to come.

So whilst I would love to return to football, which I miss so much, I am conscious of and actually routinely witness the toll it takes on the families of the dead. But equally on those that survive it. I have bought my season ticket. I would happily contribute further to the club if I am asked. If they want to offer me my season ticket for the next few years at the same price, I will buy it, if it helps.

I feel what many people are failing to grasp is that we are trying to stop the SPREAD of coronavirus....
I strongly believe that if some fans are allowed into grounds it should be
A) home fans only
B) only fans from within the county in which the team plays.

There is no logic in allowing fans from different areas of the country to travel to other areas to watch sport....

If you were a Man Utd fan from Northampton you could theoretically go from Northampton to Manchester (a high risk area) and bring the virus back to this county.
By only allowing home fans that are local to the club to attend matches any flare ups are kept local and are at least doing something to stop the SPREAD.

This isn’t great if you live miles away from the club you support but it is far better imo than having a situation where people can travel up and down the country from low risk to high risk areas which will do nothing to stop country wide transmission.

Very good post and completely agree

Agreed :o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54492682

Think it says everything about the UK's approach to this that Manchester's mayor was told the lockdown rules are negotiable, but the financial support package was non-negotiable. Surely that should be the other way round? If the government's scientific advisers say that steps X, Y and Z are necessary to contain the virus, then those steps shouldn't be up for discussion, and the discussion should be about how to mitigate the financial fallout?

I still don't accept that the decision to keep fans out of grounds is anything other than a political one. A token effort allowing them to be seen as doing something, impacting an industry they know a lot of the public won't have too much sympathy for. The only time we've heard the government's scientific advisers talk specifically about crowds at sports venues was back in March, when they said the effect was probably minimal compared to people mixing indoors.

I've heard nothing to the contrary, so does anyone know if shooting and hunting parties are still exempt from the 'rule of six'? If so, then that probably says all you need to know, right?

Football is a working mans sport so of course the tories are going to fúck it over

It was a working class sport. Less so at Prem and Championship level these days.

Yet it was founded by Eton who worked out the Rules and played the first away game. It won’t be the Tories or even Labour who mess up it will be the Liberal’s and the Corbyista’s.

Benny for Rose .

Oh shut up you old fool. How will anything that happens to football have anything to do with your beloved Corbynistas, that you mention at every chance? There's about a hundred of the cretins and they're too busy thinking up hashtags to worry about football.

And what on earth does somthing that happend over 150 years ago have to do with who watches football in 2020?

Absolutely everything is the Tories fault. :P

I signed this earlier this week.   After today’s game, can anyone tell me how to unsign?

I haven’t signed, rather just watch from the comfort of my home with the dross we are serving up.

After today.
I'm glad i can't go,

keep up the hoof work Keith.

Admittedly not a lot. So how does KC improve the side?

Some shots on target might be a good place to start. :P