Jump to content

Coronavirus (Football Thread)


Recommended Posts


33 minutes ago, NEM said:

7 day case rate per 100k population has went from England having the highest of the 4 nations pre restrictions to the lowest now so aye it's fair to say they've failed.

But I thought focusing on cases was futile, and what mattered was whether or not they led to hospitalisations/deaths? 
 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

But I thought focusing on cases was futile, and what mattered was whether or not they led to hospitalisations/deaths? 
 

 

...,and how do restrictions impact that if they don't reduce case numbers?

 

15 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

Maybe they've passed the peak and we haven't?

Maybe.  Or maybe forcing folk into bars etc to watch football rather than outdoors is a stupid idea

Link to comment
1 minute ago, NEM said:

...,and how do restrictions impact that if they don't reduce case numbers?

 

Maybe.  Or maybe forcing folk into bars etc to watch football rather than outdoors is a stupid idea

How would you know if they did/didn't reduce case numbers? Without them, more might've been infected, they might not have been. There is not a predetermined number of acceptable cases to deem restrictions a failure, there's no way of knowing if it did/did not cause less or more cases. Only speculation. 
 

I didn't agree with the restrictions but suggesting it's a 'failure' without anything to compare it to, is silly, IMO. 
 

If the restrictions had caused a considerable rise in deaths/hospitalisations, you could probably surmise they were a failure. 
 

Just because the virus continued to spread doesn't necessarily mean it was, though. As you rightly like to point out, 'it'll spread anyway.' 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, NEM said:

7 day case rate per 100k population has went from England having the highest of the 4 nations pre restrictions to the lowest now so aye it's fair to say they've failed.

Was there not a serious shortage of LFT’s in England so less tests taken would make their figures look better.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

How would you know if they did/didn't reduce case numbers? Without them, more might've been infected, they might not have been. There is not a predetermined number of acceptable cases to deem restrictions a failure, there's no way of knowing if it did/did not cause less or more cases. Only speculation. 
 

I didn't agree with the restrictions but suggesting it's a 'failure' without anything to compare it to, is silly, IMO. 
 

If the restrictions had caused a considerable rise in deaths/hospitalisations, you could probably surmise they were a failure. 
 

Just because the virus continued to spread doesn't necessarily mean it was, though. As you rightly like to point out, 'it'll spread anyway.' 

But we do - we can compare it to our neighbours who didn't impose the same ridiculous restrictions.

52 minutes ago, NEM said:

7 day case rate per 100k population has went from England having the highest of the 4 nations pre restrictions to the lowest now so aye it's fair to say they've failed.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Was there not a serious shortage of LFT’s in England so less tests taken would make their figures look better.

Unlikely as we don't include them up here anyway according to this

Are lateral flow test results included in headline Covid-19 case figures? - Full Fact

"The headline case numbers for Wales and Scotland do not currently include reported positive lateral flow test results, although data on this is available elsewhere."

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, NEM said:

But we do - we can compare it to our neighbours who didn't impose the same ridiculous restrictions.

 

A nation totally differing in size, type of population, and arguably, mindset. Obviously it's looked at on a per capita basis but that doesn't negate all the differing factors. 
 

You don't know that the cases would've been less without restrictions, you can't know that, it's hypothetical. 
 

Im surprised to see you make an argument for failure of policy on the basis of cases, considering you've slammed them for basing policy around case rises and not hospitalisations etc. Hospitalisations etc that we don't have the numbers for yet over this period (I don't think.) 

 

Again I disagree with the restrictions I just don't think anyone can categorically state the restrictions as a "failure." 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, NEM said:

...,and how do restrictions impact that if they don't reduce case numbers?

 

Maybe.  Or maybe forcing folk into bars etc to watch football rather than outdoors is a stupid idea

Maybe they did? Unless all 6,000,000 odd folk in Scotland got infected, there's no feasible way of knowing that for sure. 
 

You can only loosely compare to other nations. That won't ever paint a full picture though as there are so many social, economic and cultural factors that tie into everything. 
 

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

A nation totally differing in size, type of population, and arguably, mindset. Obviously it's looked at on a per capita basis but that doesn't negate all the differing factors. 
 

You don't know that the cases would've been less without restrictions, you can't know that, it's hypothetical. 
 

Im surprised to see you make an argument for failure of policy on the basis of cases, considering you've slammed them for basing policy around case rises and not hospitalisations etc. Hospitalisations etc that we don't have the numbers for yet over this period (I don't think.) 

 

Again I disagree with the restrictions I just don't think anyone can categorically state the restrictions as a "failure." 

A nation more densely populated ergo should have higher cases?

Yes it's hypothetical but given that's all we've to go on it's reasonable to use as a guide.

I've slammed them for their ridiculous restrictions, restrictions they imposed in a futile attempt to lower case numbers.

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Maybe they did? Unless all 6,000,000 odd folk in Scotland got infected, there's no feasible way of knowing that for sure. 
 

You can only loosely compare to other nations. That won't ever paint a full picture though as there are so many social, economic and cultural factors that tie into everything. 
 

 

So how do you suggest measuring the success of the restrictions?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, NEM said:

Lol so you’d be fine for sturgeon to carry on with the bullshit, there’s no way of telling if they work! Wise up min ?

No? I've said I don't agree with the restrictions? Yeah said that twice. 
 

My only assertion is you can't say it's a definitive failure. 
 

Read my posts min ?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

No? I've said I don't agree with the restrictions? Yeah said that twice. 
 

My only assertion is you can't say it's a definitive failure. 
 

Read my posts min ?

On what grounds do you disagree with them then if you can’t tell whether they’ve worked or not? ?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, NEM said:

On what grounds do you disagree with them then if you can’t tell whether they’ve worked or not? ?

On the grounds that plenty are vaccinated and it's a weak variant by all accounts. 
 

As you rightly say all the time, people will get it regardless. 
 

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Reed or deed said:

I don’t give a flying fuck.

 

You absolutely do, you're constantly posting about the subject. You're one of the most vocal , even advocating the non-vaxed get refused hospital treatment. But also bragging about boozing at a packed golf club during lockdown. I'll say it again, you're a dimwit.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, maryhilldon said:

You absolutely do, you're constantly posting about the subject. You're one of the most vocal , even advocating the non-vaxed get refused hospital treatment. But also bragging about boozing at a packed golf club during lockdown. I'll say it again, you're a dimwit.

You’re a dickhead but you’re right here

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...