GrangeParkCobbler
|
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.......
|
|
« Last Edit: October 09, 2020, 16:02:34 pm by GrangeParkCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
The Hotel End GTA Champion 2006/07, 2007/08, 2011/12, 2012/13, 2018/19 and 2023/24
|
|
|
rebelspawn
|
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".
Here you go... I can't let that one slide. Cite your source, or show your workings please
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.
'1 million covid deaths in Ten months 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%'
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.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
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".
Those death tolls you quote are 'COVID related', and that's a whole different ball game.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
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.......
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
Or if you were really unlucky you would have been struck by lightning 20.8 million times.
|
|
|
|
guest3063
|
Don't worry folks you'll be able to attend the panto this Christmas , but football....
|
|
|
|
guest3086
|
Don't worry folks you'll be able to attend the panto this Christmas , but football.... I love the panto. My kids think it is s***e but I still make them go.
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
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.......
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?
|
|
|
|
guest2934
|
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".
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.
|
|
|
|
guest2934
|
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?
|
|
|
|
Terryfenwickatemyhamster
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
Shoemaker
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Winslow Lee
|
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.
Very good post and completely agree
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
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.
Agreed
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
NTFC Nut
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54492682Think 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.
|
|
|
|
JollyCobbler
|
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54492682Think 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?
|
|
|
|
The 12th Marquis of Sixfields
|
Football is a working mans sport so of course the tories are going to fúck it over
|
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2023
|
|
|
guest3338
|
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.
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
Football is a working mans sport so of course the tories are going to fúck it over
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.
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
guest3338
|
Benny for Rose .
|
|
|
|
|