Petition - Allow Football Fans To Attend Matches At All Levels

[Melbourne Cobbler]

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

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.

[guest3359]

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.

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.

[guest3338]

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?

[everbrite]

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.

Blimey Jolly had no idea you were a scientist!

[everbrite]

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?

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

[Knockingonabit]

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? 

[JollyCobbler]

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? 

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.

[JollyCobbler]

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.

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.

[Melbourne Cobbler]

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?

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?

[west stand oap]

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.

[guest3338]

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 **** 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?

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?

[guest3338]

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.

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

[guest49]

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.

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.

[NTFC Nut]

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.

[Shoemaker]

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.

[guest3338]

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.

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?

[everbrite]

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? 

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 !

[everbrite]

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.

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

[everbrite]

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 **** 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?

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

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Statistically you still have more chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from covid

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".