POLL: What should they do?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Option 1 by a mile.

Amazed people think otherwise.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

“By any measure around the world whether it is World Health Organisation advising Australia or even our national health department, we think 10 to 30 per cent of Australia will contract the virus,” he said on Fox Footy’s AFL 360.

“You can do the numbers, even if we go to 10 per cent when we have 2.7 million people in Australia.

“So the chances of a player out in their normal environment coming in contract with somebody is extraordinarily likely.”

Given AFL clubs have a large support group around them, Larkins suggested it would be hard to stop a potential infection across the playing group.

“The absolute issue is that it is person to person contact, right now we’ve got no positive tests in any AFL player and there’s been many players tested,” he said.

“But we’ve still got a cohort of 60-70 people support around a club, so the chances of it happening are going to be there. I think it’s a public health concern, we don’t do it from a sport point of view. I don’t want a season to be impacted but it already has been."

Why it is ‘extraordinarily likely’ an AFL player will contract coronavirus

 

[chook fowler 18,174]

contact Essendrug and go for Hird immunity.

[ManDee 7,073]

5 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Read my post again. I'm assuming you're being deliberately obtuse now.

Nev you have shown no link between elite athletes playing football in a closed stadium and at risk groups getting Covid19. I suggest that is because none exists.

Let the season begin and continue until a player is diagnosed with Covid19 then stop the season. (For fairness not public safety)

[Lord Nev 13,511]

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Nev you have shown no link between elite athletes playing football in a closed stadium and at risk groups getting Covid19. I suggest that is because none exists.

Let the season begin and continue until a player is diagnosed with Covid19 then stop the season. (For fairness not public safety)

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-information-on-social-distancing

Read the above post from Dr Larkins. Then read the information sheet here.

I'm not sure what "elite athletes" has to do with anything, so not sure why you keep bringing that up, it's about minimizing risk (not sure how many times that needs to be said).

This has been explained to you numerous times now, so I see no point in engaging with you further if you're not actually willing to engage rather than just repeat your irrelevant and ill-informed points ad nauseam.

Cheers.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Lord Nev

[ManDee 7,073]

2 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-information-on-social-distancing

Nice read, thanks.

Nowhere does it state there is a link between elite athletes playing football in a closed stadium and at risk groups getting Covid19.

It does recommend that gatherings be in open spaces.

So there is no link. 

 

[Macca 16,173]

Players can have the virus but not show any visible signs of having the virus.

And the virus is highly contageous as we all know.  And it's a contact sport (footy) with a lot of congestion.

It's not a stretch to state that an undetected player can pass the disease on to another unsuspecting player who can then pass the virus on to family members (which can include grandparents and the like)

High risk in my opinion.  The sensible move would be to delay the start of the season until it's safe (or safer) to proceed.

The government could also step in and decree that contact sport (or any sport) needs to be shut down.  Or at least,  sporting bodies could be advised as such.

A lot of minor sport has been put on hold for the reasons outlined above

Edited March 17, 2020 by Macca

[ManDee 7,073]

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Players can have the virus but not show any visible signs of having the virus.

And the virus is highly contageous as we all know.  And it's a contact sport (footy) with a lot of congestion.

It's not a stretch to state that an undetected player can pass the disease on to another unsuspecting player who can then pass the virus on to family members (which can include grandparents and the like)

High risk in my opinion.  The sensible move would be to delay the start of the season until it's safe (or safer) to proceed.

Let's replace players with people/person. 

People can have the virus but not show any visible signs of having the virus.

And the virus is highly contagious as we all know.  Shopping, public transport, schools have a lot of contact with potentially infected people

It's not a stretch to state that an undetected person can pass the disease on to another unsuspecting person who can then pass the virus on to family members (which can include grandparents and the like)

High risk in my opinion.  The sensible move would be to delay shopping, public transport, schools until it's safe (or safer) to proceed.

--Does anyone here truly believe that footy at a closed stadium is as much of a risk as shopping, public transport or going to school?

[ManDee 7,073]

If the solution is total isolation then by all means stop the footy. But selected isolation is not isolation.

 

[Webber 9,974]

There is no risk to the greater public of players competing in empty stadiums, EXCEPT if just one of those players has the virus, when of course they would either be asymptomatic yet infectious, or pre-symptomatic yet infectious. Other players would unequivocally be infected (initially pre-symptomatic), and they would then have contact with football club staff, family, friends and others, not knowing they’re infectious, and so on it spreads. Footballers, (like the greater public) unless symptomatically suspect or positively diagnosed, are NOT in self-isolation or quarantine.

What’s being missed by some on here is that the virus spreads during the period of asymptomatic but infectious incubation. That is, before you know you’ve got it (assuming that the infected are isolated). Footballers are no exception. Playing with others risks spread. This is why ‘generalised’ minimal contact is being encouraged. In Italy’s case this has become NO contact. Where you stand on just letting the virus run, or trying to slow and flatten, is a personal thing. I suspect if you’re 80 years old and prone to bronchitis, letting it run is less desirable. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Webber

[No10 323]

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Let's replace players with people/person. 

People can have the virus but not show any visible signs of having the virus.

And the virus is highly contagious as we all know.  Shopping, public transport, schools have a lot of contact with potentially infected people

It's not a stretch to state that an undetected person can pass the disease on to another unsuspecting person who can then pass the virus on to family members (which can include grandparents and the like)

High risk in my opinion.  The sensible move would be to delay shopping, public transport, schools until it's safe (or safer) to proceed.

--Does anyone here truly believe that footy at a closed stadium is as much of a risk as shopping, public transport or going to school?

I agree, playing games with all the monitoring and control is a resonable and sensible way forward. It seems the players and AFL agree.

Of course option 1 would be nice, but that seems the most unlikely. It’s either start playing and see how it goes or fold 2020

[Deemania since 56 6,122]

1 hour ago, dl4e said:

Play this weekend and for as long as possible. They don't start this weekend you can kiss the season goodbye. We should have shut our borders about a month ago and only allow Aussies back in and straight in to a 3 week quarantine zone. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it.

Unprecedented circumstances of a highly virulent and contagious viral pandemic is in existence so worldwide, life must change for its own protection.

Regretfully, for a variety of reasons not excluding gross optimism for the present contagion and that of the future, we have started extremely late in the combat and containment of this disease.

No excuse will save lives. We all already know this.

Any measure of transmission restraint however unpleasant is a good one and sadly, that includes football cancellations until the pandemic is over.

Certain other aspects of life may well teach humanity that the selfish, the greedy and the indulgent fortunates may also have limited futures and it is through unpleasant sacrificial decisions that life's normality may / will be restored across a necessary timeframe. So, dl4e, I fully agree with your post. 

[ManDee 7,073]

4 minutes ago, Webber said:

There is no risk to the greater public of players competing in empty stadiums, EXCEPT if just one of those players has the virus, when of course they would either be asymptomatic yet infectious, or pre-symptomatic yet infectious. Other players would unequivocally be infected (initially pre-symptomatic), and they would then have contact with football club staff, family, friends and others, not knowing they’re infectious, and so on it spreads. Footballers, (like the greater public) unless symptomatically suspect or positively diagnosed, are NOT in self-isolation or quarantine.

What’s being missed by some on here is that the virus spreads during the period of asymptomatic but infectious incubation. That is, before you know you’ve got it (assuming that the infected are isolated). Footballers are no exception. Playing with others risks spread. This is why ‘generalised’ minimal contact is being encouraged. In Italy’s case this has become NO contact. Where you stand on just letting the virus run, or trying to slow and flatten, is a personal thing. I suspect if you’re 80 years old and prone to bronchitis, letting it run is less desirable. 

So Webber what is a greater risk, the footy starting until a player is diagnosed as having Covid19  or shopping, public transport and going to school.

Until we ban public transport and going to school and going shopping we have no justification in stopping the football. The risk is miniscule compared public transport and going to school and going shopping.

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Does anyone here truly believe that footy at a closed stadium is as much of a risk as shopping, public transport or going to school?

You're choosing to ignore a few key facts.

Obviously, closing schools would be ideal in one sense,  but closing schools has significant ramifications. Who looks after the kids? Either grandparents, who are likely to be at risk from the virus, or parents, who then need to stay at home from work. There goes a significant number of Australia's medical staff at the time when they are needed most. The Government advice to keep schools open (for now) is not made lightly and takes into account the best available medical advice in terms of risk. 

Usually, when I go shopping or take public transport, I try my best to avoid tackling those around me which lowers the risk somewhat. 

The number of cases in Aus is currently doubling every 4 days or so. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that it's a matter of when, not if a player tests positive (almost certainly within the next couple of weeks). When that happens, the AFL will have no choice but to postpone/ cancel the season.

 

[Webber 9,974]

2 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Unprecedented circumstances of a highly virulent and contagious viral pandemic is in existence so worldwide, life must change for its own protection.

Regretfully, for a variety of reasons not excluding gross optimism for the present contagion and that of the future, we have started extremely late in the combat and containment of this disease.

No excuse will save lives. We all already know this.

Any measure of transmission restraint however unpleasant is a good one and sadly, that includes football cancellations until the pandemic is over.

Certain other aspects of life may well teach humanity that the selfish, the greedy and the indulgent fortunates may also have limited futures and it is through unpleasant sacrificial decisions that life's normality may / will be restored across a necessary timeframe. So, dl4e, I fully agree with your post. 

Many of us Deemania are wondering if this will positively impact a change of behaviour in the ‘selfish, greedy and indulgent fortunates’, and sadly I can’t see why it would. If there’s anything that seems obvious, it’s that their cards are stamped. 

[ManDee 7,073]

1 minute ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

You're choosing to ignore a few key facts.

Obviously, closing schools would be ideal in one sense,  but closing schools has significant ramifications. Who looks after the kids? Either grandparents, who are likely to be at risk from the virus, or parents, who then need to stay at home from work. There goes a significant number of Australia's medical staff at the time when they are needed most. The Government advice to keep schools open (for now) is not made lightly and takes into account the best available medical advice in terms of risk. 

Usually, when I go shopping or take public transport, I try my best to avoid tackling those around me which lowers the risk somewhat. 

The number of cases in Aus is currently doubling every 4 days or so. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that it's a matter of when, not if a player tests positive (almost certainly within the next couple of weeks). When that happens, the AFL will have no choice but to postpone/ cancel the season.

 

I put it to you that the delay in closing schools and workplaces and public transport is fiscally driven not public health driven. My belief is that we should let the footy run while we can, as a distraction that we all love. It is very low risk. I would think that refuelling your car at the fuel pump has a greater risk to the community.

[Webber 9,974]

6 minutes ago, ManDee said:

So Webber what is a greater risk, the footy starting until a player is diagnosed as having Covid19  or shopping, public transport and going to school.

Until we ban public transport and going to school and going shopping we have no justification in stopping the football. The risk is miniscule compared public transport and going to school and going shopping.

Mandee, I’m not arguing relative risk, I’m merely stating the obvious, that planned physical contact (footy) will assist in spread. The compulsions of relative responsibility rest then with those who organise and participate in the planned contact (AFL and AFLPA). It’s not an argument not to play, it’s a statement of the issue at stake. 

[Macca 16,173]

19 minutes ago, ManDee said:

If the solution is total isolation then by all means stop the footy. But selected isolation is not isolation.

 

We can't shut down everything but sport is a non essential activity whilst we're in this crisis.

Businesses,  commerce and the like can close down for a period but not indefinitely.  Otherwise another greater issue can be created

[ManDee 7,073]

2 minutes ago, Webber said:

Mandee, I’m not arguing relative risk, I’m merely stating the obvious, that planned physical contact (footy) will assist in spread. The compulsions of relative responsibility rest then with those who organise and participate in the planned contact (AFL and AFLPA). It’s not an argument not to play, it’s a statement of the issue at stake. 

But surely we should prioritize the risks. Eliminate the highest risks first and work down. If the players are happy to play and the stadiums are closed I see no reason to stop them (until one is diagnosed positive). My feeling is that the players are at greater risk from their families not to their families. 

[ManDee 7,073]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

We can't shut down everything but sport is a non essential activity whilst we're in this crisis.

Businesses,  commerce and the like can close down for a period but not indefinitely.  Otherwise another greater issue can be created

So if that is the case then the pandemic will run its course. Playing football or not will have little or no effect.

[Mel Bourne 3,596]

Cancel season until Harley Bennell’s calves are ready. 

[Macca 16,173]

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

So if that is the case then the pandemic will run its course. Playing football or not will have little or no effect.

On a broader scale nearly all big sport worldwide has been shut down ... playing in front of empty stadiums is not even an option for sporting bodies around the globe.

Anyway,  we could go back and forth forever on this issue. 

Lets agree to disagree.

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I put it to you that the delay in closing schools and workplaces and public transport is fiscally driven not public health driven. My belief is that we should let the footy run while we can, as a distraction that we all love. It is very low risk. I would think that refuelling your car at the fuel pump has a greater risk to the community.

I'm a cynical bastard, but I appreciate that the Government are screwed either way. It's easy to sit back and criticize, but looking at the situation objectively, the Government is forced to choose between very bad and catastrophic options. Wrong decisions at this point could cost thousands of lives. Shutting down schools, workplaces and public transport would create chaos in it's own right - and may not do much to slow the spread in any case. I don't envy the poor bastards making these decisions - I doubt they'd be sleeping very easily atm. 

Don't get me wrong - I love footy and it would be a great distraction - but realistically, the AFL won't be able to run a comp once a player or coach tests positive - which statistically speaking, is a virtual certainty in the very near future. There's a very good reason every major sporting code in the world is being suspended, and it isn't groupthink. Let's agree to disagree on this one! 

 

[binman 37,784]

19 minutes ago, Webber said:

Mandee, I’m not arguing relative risk, I’m merely stating the obvious, that planned physical contact (footy) will assist in spread. The compulsions of relative responsibility rest then with those who organise and participate in the planned contact (AFL and AFLPA). It’s not an argument not to play, it’s a statement of the issue at stake. 

A god point Webber. As i have flagged before i am for continuing, but shifting towards holding off.

I wonder if they do decide to play would it be feasible for all involved at a club who have to have direct contact (remmbering pretty much all admin can work from home) essentially self isolate when not playing a game or training. So that would be say 40 players and maybe 20 staff (coaches, ancillary staff, medical teams etc), so 60 people per team isolating themselves for say 6 weeks. For instance in hotel or the like. So say 1200 people essentially isolating themselves for 6 weeks. 

If that occurred the risk of spreading the virus to the broader community would be minimised (noting that it would be impossible to completely stop infections), taking away a key (valid) argument against playing.

A query you might be able to answer. Taking your point about people being asymptomatic and still being infectious i assume if a person hs COvid 19 a test would show that. Is it feasible to test all AFL players? Donovan Mitchel tested positive without symptoms so i assume they tested all NBA players, or at least all of the Utah Jazz players.

Another query. If you think games should not be played then logically - and for the same reason ie containment - training should be called off. As it has been in the NBA

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

I repeat, how do elite athletes playing football at a closed stadium put at risk people at greater risk? 

Because they can catch it from other players through the close contact sport and then take it back to the community which they otherwise would not if they were minimalising contact like everyone else. Contact sports all over the world have been cancelled for the same reason.