Coronavirus (Football Thread)

[aberdeen1970 2,577]

14 minutes ago, Ramandu said:

No, everyone's in the same league, but don't play all the teams. It's used quite a bit in chess tournaments, and works very well for that, but silly to use in this context (where you're looking for qualifiers, rather than a winner/rank). The reason uefa are doing it is to get the big teams playing each other lots, without being knocked out. 

It'll be a nightmare for fans, as you can't know what the next fixture is until you've played the previous fixture. I confess that I'm looking forward to sports journalists not understanding it though.

Sounds like a nightmare for everyone other than the usual big clubs 

[Kiriakov33 77]

Looks as if crowds allowed back next week.

[Bamber 260]

has to be announced one way or another today - the next opportunity is next tuesday which is too late

If its less than capacity there is no time for any ballot for tickets

If it is full capacity no time to arrange programs sellers and stewards

I have been looking previously at hospitalisation in Grampian yesterday 79 people were in hospital you need to go back to the 7th of December to get to this figure again Over 1 month ago . cases yesterday (824) are less the 50% a week ago(2162) even the 7 day figure is lower than 7 Days ago

[Green Final 15]

2 hours ago, Kiriakov33 said:

Looks as if crowds allowed back next week.

Restrictions on large outdoor events in Scotland, including football matches and concerts, are to be lifted from next Monday.

[sooth_stander 425]

So now, in terms of entry, given the attendances have been capped at 9999 up till now, we’ll have the Covid passport App issue to worry about now?

Edited January 11 by sooth_stander

[ShinnieFGS 14]

13 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

So now, in terms of entry, given the attendances have been capped at 9999 up till now, we’ll have the Covid passport App issue to worry about now?

Going by the new guidance from this afternoon, 50% of tickets will need to have their vaccine certificates checked before entry. Believe it was 20% before.

Another issue from today's announcement is that the term "fully vaccinated" has changed and now means you've either had the two original doses plus the booster or you received your second original vaccine dose within the last four months. It might be my interpretation of it but that seems a bit unfair for the younger supporters who have only recently been able to book their booster jabs, especially when they make up a large chunk of the fanbase. 

[GeorgeStreetReds 20]

Another failed SNP policy comes to an ignominious end.

[NEM 3,406]

25 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

So now, in terms of entry, given the attendances have been capped at 9999 up till now, we’ll have the Covid passport App issue to worry about now?

Nothing to worry about, the stewards won't be giving a fuck about the passport nonsense

[muttonhumper 1,838]

39 minutes ago, ShinnieFGS said:

Going by the new guidance from this afternoon, 50% of tickets will need to have their vaccine certificates checked before entry. Believe it was 20% before.

Another issue from today's announcement is that the term "fully vaccinated" has changed and now means you've either had the two original doses plus the booster or you received your second original vaccine dose within the last four months. It might be my interpretation of it but that seems a bit unfair for the younger supporters who have only recently been able to book their booster jabs, especially when they make up a large chunk of the fanbase. 

Having to book a booster jab...

[eddiec 0]

i think they also said that you can get in with proof of a negative lateral flow which presumably means you have to go on the .gov website and then wait for the email which will state you are not infectious same sort of shit we had to do for the early Euro games

 

[Eugenefani 60]

1 hour ago, sooth_stander said:

So now, in terms of entry, given the attendances have been capped at 9999 up till now, we’ll have the Covid passport App issue to worry about now?

Didn’t they announce before Christmas that a negative lateral flow test would allow you into large events aswell?

[sooth_stander 425]

1 hour ago, Eugenefani said:

Didn’t they announce before Christmas that a negative lateral flow test would allow you into large events aswell?

Which anybody can fudge, if they really want to?

[WesthillWanderersFC 1,137]

2 hours ago, GeorgeStreetReds said:

Another failed SNP policy comes to an ignominious end.

Hi Douglas, ye fat Tory cunt  

[Alex Ferguson 66]

Crowds should never have gone down to 500, in Ireland for example they went to 5,000.  When the crowds in England never ceased, it's ridiculous they over reacted.  

Heard Leanne Crichton talking about this on the radio and have to say it's the first time I've agreed with her on anything

[Dr_Manhattan 301]

3 hours ago, ShinnieFGS said:

Another issue from today's announcement is that the term "fully vaccinated" has changed and now means you've either had the two original doses plus the booster or you received your second original vaccine dose within the last four months.

We are all just one state mandated booster away from being 'unvaccinated'.

[Studebaker-90 903]

6 hours ago, eddiec said:

i think they also said that you can get in with proof of a negative lateral flow which presumably means you have to go on the .gov website and then wait for the email which will state you are not infectious same sort of shit we had to do for the early Euro games

 

You can register a negative result yourself and a text confirms it within seconds. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, GeorgeStreetReds said:

Another failed SNP policy comes to an ignominious end.

I'm against restrictions. 
 

I don't know if it's failed, or hasn't failed, though. 
 

Strange to suggest it's a 'failure' when one of the most frustrating things about it is the lack of clear data to back up the policy. 
 

If turns out the restrictions didn't stop hospitalisations etc then aye it's failed. If it did then it hasn't; as that was their aim. 
 

But really, we don't know. So, odd to say it's failed. 
 

 

[NEM 3,406]

11 hours ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

I'm against restrictions. 
 

I don't know if it's failed, or hasn't failed, though. 
 

Strange to suggest it's a 'failure' when one of the most frustrating things about it is the lack of clear data to back up the policy. 
 

If turns out the restrictions didn't stop hospitalisations etc then aye it's failed. If it did then it hasn't; as that was their aim. 
 

But really, we don't know. So, odd to say it's failed. 
 

 

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.

[The Boofon 4,557]

30 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.

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

[Guest]

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? 
 

 

[NEM 3,406]

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

[The Boofon 4,557]

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? 
 

 

Ooooof. Hud at.

 

[NEM 3,406]

2 minutes ago, The Boofon said:

Ooooof. Hud at.

 

 

3 minutes ago, NEM said:

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

 

 

 

[Guest]

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.' 

[Tommy 3,471]

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.

[NEM 3,406]

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.

 

[NEM 3,406]

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."

Edited January 12 by NEM

[Guest]

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." 

[Guest]

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. 
 

 

[NEM 3,406]

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.