Back in the grounds......

[Terryfenwickatemyhamster]

Somebody said that nobody wore masks so was that correct! To me, the evidence is that they help?

There was a few people who ignored some of the rules. But there’s was virtually zero chance of catching anything, due to the good spacing.

[andycobbler]

There was a few people who ignored some of the rules. But there’s was virtually zero chance of catching anything, due to the good spacing.

Unless you had the misfortune to meet the new style of stewarding.

[Winslow Lee]

There was a few people who ignored some of the rules. But there’s was virtually zero chance of catching anything, due to the good spacing.

I think you are overselling it a bit. A sneeze can send micro droplets 27 feet which stay in the air for minutes. This is why wearing masks is so important to catch sneezes and droplets from singing and shouting at football.

[Manwork04]

The inconvenient truth.
https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/activity-risk.pdf

[claretparrot]

I think you are overselling it a bit. A sneeze can send micro droplets 27 feet which stay in the air for minutes. This is why wearing masks is so important to catch sneezes and droplets from singing and shouting at football.

It's also why the distinction between outdoor and indoor settings is vitally important.

The droplets hang in the air in both settings, but outdoors that air is moving quickly and your chances of breathing in enough droplets to cause you a problem are next to zero. This applies for as long as proper social distancing is maintained and nobody deliberately sneezes, coughs, shouts or sings directly in your face.

As for surfaces, just don't touch them! If you have to (as many will to get down stairs etc.), sanitise your hands before you touch your face and again you'll be fine.

With good rules and procedures in place (which by all accounts the club have achieved), and everyone taking sensible personal precautions, the number of transmissions at a given game should be zero. It's the second bit which could see the whole thing unravel.

[BackOfTheNet]

With good rules and procedures in place (which by all accounts the club have achieved), and everyone taking sensible personal precautions, the number of transmissions at a given game should be zero. It's the second bit which could see the whole thing unravel.

That's the thing though, isn't it? I trust the club to behave sensibly, I don't trust the public to behave themselves!

[claretparrot]

The inconvenient truth.
https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/activity-risk.pdf

Sorry Manny, but this is as good as meaningless for the purposes this discussion.

It doesn't even specify that the sports stadium is outdoors. The fact that going to school or workplace is in a lower risk category without any extra caveats around distancing etc. suggests to me that they're not talking about the kind of environment that the club are trying to create at Sixfields.

It's from an American organisation and presumably aimed at Americans. For a long while, many states allowed sporting events to continue with little to no restrictions. It could be that those are the settings/environments they're referring to. I don't see that one-liner as evidence that going to Sixfields puts you at high risk.

[claretparrot]

That's the thing though, isn't it? I trust the club to behave sensibly, I don't trust the public to behave themselves!

Couldn't agree more, and the pandemic has pretty much obliterated my faith in the Great British Public. All the same though, you've just got to weigh up the risks for yourself and make a decision to go or stay away. My own view is that even with a decent smattering of idiots in the ground, I can quite easily keep myself (and by extension my close contacts) safe.

[tcobb]

As with all the Covid precautions people have to act within the guidelines. The lockdowns are accepted and so are the tiers. We dont really know which ones offer protection and which ones dont, maybe we will in the near future maybe we never will. But we abide by them in the hope we are helping out in the current situation.
 At the moment it has been deemed as acceptable to allow a small number of people into Stadiums to watch sporting events.
 Some people are comfortable with that, some people are not. So if you are happy with the decision to allow matches to go ahead go to the game, if youre not stay at home. It really is as simple as that, why people have to have a go at fellow supporters and the Club is beyond me.

[Coolcat]

Just 714 at SJP last night. Also seen on NTFC's site, a complaint made by one of our players, concerning something said/shouted at them by one of those individuals!

[everbrite]

As with all the Covid precautions people have to act within the guidelines. The lockdowns are accepted and so are the tiers. We dont really know which ones offer protection and which ones dont, maybe we will in the near future maybe we never will. But we abide by them in the hope we are helping out in the current situation.
 At the moment it has been deemed as acceptable to allow a small number of people into Stadiums to watch sporting events.
 Some people are comfortable with that, some people are not. So if you are happy with the decision to allow matches to go ahead go to the game, if youre not stay at home. It really is as simple as that, why people have to have a go at fellow supporters and the Club is beyond me.

Correct it’s generally those with an axe to grind in any case!

[Deepcut Cobbler]

Correct it’s generally those with an axe to grind in any case!

No, but you probably believe that because they don't agree with you? 

[rebelspawn]

There was a few people who ignored some of the rules. But there’s was virtually zero chance of catching anything, due to the good spacing.

Good spacing, when seated.

How did they fill up the stadium? there are blocks of thirty seats between aisles so unless they loaded up the stadium from the centre of blocks outwards in a methodical fashion, how did it adhere to social distancing?

[claretparrot]

Good spacing, when seated.

How did they fill up the stadium? there are blocks of thirty seats between aisles so unless they loaded up the stadium from the centre of blocks outwards in a methodical fashion, how did it adhere to social distancing?

Sorry, I know that I keep chipping in on this thread and likely boring those who bother reading my posts to tears!

Briefly passing within two metres of someone, or even half a metre, is not what social distancing is trying to address. Nor will it have any material impact on your chances of catching the virus.

[rebelspawn]

Sorry, I know that I keep chipping in on this thread and likely boring those who bother reading my posts to tears!

Briefly passing within two metres of someone, or even half a metre, is not what social distancing is trying to address. Nor will it have any material impact on your chances of catching the virus.

Have you got source for that, that isn't the Government? I don't think we should be be relying purely on government guidelines when we all know that the rules can never be based on pure science and they are having to strike the balance between, public opinion, economy and health.

I think it was also you that made the argument that outdoors is safer because the particles don't sit in the air, they move, right? isn't that a worse scenario, when you have a stadium full of static seated people and airbourne particles moving around?

Just to be clear, the questions above are not meant to antagonise, they are genuine questions.

[claretparrot]

Have you got source for that, that isn't the Government? I don't think we should be be relying purely on government guidelines when we all know that the rules can never be based on pure science and they are having to strike the balance between, public opinion, economy and health.

I think it was also you that made the argument that outdoors is safer because the particles don't sit in the air, they move, right? isn't that a worse scenario, when you have a stadium full of static seated people and airbourne particles moving around?

Just to be clear, the questions above are not meant to antagonise, they are genuine questions.

Not taken as antagonistic - think challenge on these things is very healthy. Just to caveat what follows - I am not an expert on this stuff, but I have friends who are and have done an awful lot of reading on the subject.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted

A couple of links above from the WHO are quite useful. Long story short, and I don't mean to sound at all patronising, the virus doesn't just jump from one person to another. It is expelled into the air by vigorous exhalation (cough, sneeze, shout, sing etc.).

The reason I say that briefly passing close to someone shouldn't affect your risk is that the chances of that person coughing, sneezing, shouting or singing in your face as you pass them is negligible. Even if they had a cough or sneeze coming, the vast majority of people would try to hold it in as you passed or failing that would cover their mouth and nose. All of this is more true now than ever before. Social distancing is about reducing your chances of spending a period of time within close proximity of an infected person. The longer you spend in their space the more likely they are to expel infectious droplets whilst you are near them and the more likely you are to breathe them in and become infected yourself.

As for outdoors being safer than indoors, that's not at all controversial. If you dig around on that WHO site you'll find lots of evidence to back it up as well as the logic.

[rebelspawn]

Not taken as antagonistic - think challenge on these things is very healthy. Just to caveat what follows - I am not an expert on this stuff, but I have friends who are and have done an awful lot of reading on the subject.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted

A couple of links above from the WHO are quite useful. Long story short, and I don't mean to sound at all patronising, the virus doesn't just jump from one person to another. It is expelled into the air by vigorous exhalation (cough, sneeze, shout, sing etc.).

The reason I say that briefly passing close to someone shouldn't affect your risk is that the chances of that person coughing, sneezing, shouting or singing in your face as you pass them is negligible. Even if they had a cough or sneeze coming, the vast majority of people would try to hold it in as you passed or failing that would cover their mouth and nose. All of this is more true now than ever before. Social distancing is about reducing your chances of spending a period of time within close proximity of an infected person. The longer you spend in their space the more likely they are to expel infectious droplets whilst you are near them and the more likely you are to breathe them in and become infected yourself.

As for outdoors being safer than indoors, that's not at all controversial. If you dig around on that WHO site you'll find lots of evidence to back it up as well as the logic.

Thanks for the links, appreciate it. I understand based on your explanation above what the target of social distancing as the government have rolled it out, is trying to achieve. I understand that short exposure, is better than longer term exposure, all logical. But what about going to a football match and having 15 instances of 1 minute exposure compared to sitting with 1 person for 15 minutes at a bus stop for example. it's still 15 minutes of exposure with potentially infected people isn't it?

Outdoors vs indoors is not controversial, but the studies on outdoors haven't tested for 2000 people in the space of a football stadium. Me leaving my house and going for walk on my street is not the same 2000 people descending on a venue that has a roof, and could be argued should not count as outdoors in the first place.

It saddens me, but i think i will be staying away from football grounds for a while yet.

[claretparrot]

Thanks for the links, appreciate it. I understand based on your explanation above what the target of social distancing as the government have rolled it out, is trying to achieve. I understand that short exposure, is better than longer term exposure, all logical. But what about going to a football match and having 15 instances of 1 minute exposure compared to sitting with 1 person for 15 minutes at a bus stop for example. it's still 15 minutes of exposure with potentially infected people isn't it?

Outdoors vs indoors is not controversial, but the studies on outdoors haven't tested for 2000 people in the space of a football stadium. Me leaving my house and going for walk on my street is not the same 2000 people descending on a venue that has a roof, and could be argued should not count as outdoors in the first place.

It saddens me, but i think i will be staying away from football grounds for a while yet.

You've got your own view on the level of risk and how that compares to what you're willing to accept. Whilst I see it differently, I certainly wouldn't try to sway anyone one way or the other.

On your exposure point... At the ground, I wouldn't have thought there's any good reason to spend more than a few seconds within 2m of someone not from your household/bubble unless you choose to.

On outdoors vs indoors, I'm only making a point about that distinction. 2,000 people in a covered, poorly ventilated version of Sixfields is significantly more risky than the actual Sixfields (which definitely should count as outdoors, for what it's worth).

[Tabasco Kid]

Thanks for the links, appreciate it. I understand based on your explanation above what the target of social distancing as the government have rolled it out, is trying to achieve. I understand that short exposure, is better than longer term exposure, all logical. But what about going to a football match and having 15 instances of 1 minute exposure compared to sitting with 1 person for 15 minutes at a bus stop for example. it's still 15 minutes of exposure with potentially infected people isn't it?

Outdoors vs indoors is not controversial, but the studies on outdoors haven't tested for 2000 people in the space of a football stadium. Me leaving my house and going for walk on my street is not the same 2000 people descending on a venue that has a roof, and could be argued should not count as outdoors in the first place.

It saddens me, but i think i will be staying away from football grounds for a while yet.

Rebel, do you much travelling in the course of your employment? Do you think that it is safe?
And for what its worth, the only ground that I have ever been to, with a roof is in Cardiff. And it was open. And just stand away from anybody at the bus stop. You have got more chance from catching it from somebody on the bus. Or on the train.

[rebelspawn]

Rebel, do you much travelling in the course of your employment? Do you think that it is safe?
And for what its worth, the only ground that I have ever been to, with a roof is in Cardiff. And it was open. And just stand away from anybody at the bus stop. You have got more chance from catching it from somebody on the bus. Or on the train.

I used to travel abroad every month or so with work. Commuted to an office the rest of the time. I have been working from home since March, all business related travel has stopped. Haven't and wouldn't travel on Bus or train unless it was necessary.

The west stand has closed sides, back and roof. The stand itself his more enclosed than not, particularly if you stand at the back of it. Turnstiles, staircases and under the stand are all indoors, as are toilets.