Premier League 2019-2020 Thread

[BG_Villa_Fan]

12 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Bruce’s idea could actually work. They just need to stagger the games so there are 3/4 matches every day. 

How do you imagine making unfit players, without proper training and pre-season, play 9-10 games 3 days apart even if you stagger the games? How about lower leagues where they'll have to play even more games with playoffs?

I know they care about money first and foremost, way more than about health, and even players would probably be up for it in order to keep their wages, but it'd be reckless. 

[Silent_Bob]

 

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

If we cut the speed limit to 30 mph on every road in Europe there would be virtually zero road deaths across the continent. We don't do it because it's not practical. This lock down is a temporary measure to buy time to allow the health services to prepare. We can't shut down economies for a prolonged period, it's just not viable. Business will soon re-open and the premier league is a business just like any other. They will try to do what's best for themselves, it's up to the government to tell them what they can and can't do, e.g. behind closed doors games etc.

TLDR; it's not a simple case of big business doesn't care if people die and money means more than lives. The cure can't be worse than the disease.  

By the way I'm not having a go at you but I fear there's going to be a lot of public outrage when things re-open and people are still dying of C-19. It's not possible to avoid this IMO. 

I think you are partly right, but also partly wrong.

In order to fight this virus there's more than one weapon that's being used. We can't lock society down until a vaccine is ready. That will take 12-18 months from now.

In order to prevent the health service from a complete breakdown, it's important to buy time by reducing the ratio that people spread the virus. If it's 3:1 then one person means three the week after, nine two weeks after, 27 three weeks after, 81 four weeks after, and so on. If that happens the healthservice will break down in a couple of weeks.

Socitey won't be closed down until a vaccine is available, but herd immunity should also play a part. Which means we actually need people becoming sick, but only the right people. Those that won't die from it. And simultaniously they need to improve treatment, so that the amount of time people spend at hospitals is reduced.

So it's likely buying time now, before lifting some, not all, restrictions on some groups of people that probably will survive. But people that are infected should still be in isolation, even if they only have mild symptoms. 

But people will still get sick. You can't play in the Premier League if you have corona, and even players will get it. And in a few weeks time there will be a lot of people infected, especially if restrictions are lifted. 

As far as I understand players haven't had normal training for a couple of weeks already. And that will continue for some time. To even consider playing some kind of Festival of Football with unfit footballers in July is just stupid. At best they are unfit since they haven't been training properly. At worst they will have had or is currently having a serious respiratory infection. Some of them might even die. It won't be a Festival of Football, it will be more like a Freak Show. 

[The_Steve]

Bruce's plan is pure idiocy. Typical potato brain thinking.

[sne]

Even if the PL thought this would be a viable idea, and even thou the PL is extremely powerful due to the massive money involved they would still need Agnelli, Bartomeu, Perez, Hainer, Al-Khelafi, Ceferin and all the other powerful leaders in European football to agree to a very similar solution for it to work.

 

[sne]

Will be fun when all these African players bugger off to their respective national sides to gather for the 2021 AFCON that is scheduled to take place between Jan 9th - Feb 6th in 2021.

Sure this will present no problems what so ever for most clubs even thou they are scheduled to play games every other day for that period.

Add a couple CL games that will have to be crammed in as well...

[OutByEaster?]

I read: Steve Bruce says play all the time, 24 hours a day every day, as long as we get the season finished.

I understand: Steve Bruce has a big bonus in his contract for avoiding relegation.

[villa4europe]

as I said in other football on the 30th june Newcastle will lose 7 players out of contract and 4 players on loan

bruce will be the first one moaning about his lack of squad depth during his festival of football

[sne]

This shorter transfer window, the winter break and VAR introductions have all turned out to be smashing pieces of ideas.

Can't blame them for not planning for Corona but still.

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 hour ago, Silent_Bob said:

 

I think you are partly right, but also partly wrong.

In order to fight this virus there's more than one weapon that's being used. We can't lock society down until a vaccine is ready. That will take 12-18 months from now.

In order to prevent the health service from a complete breakdown, it's important to buy time by reducing the ratio that people spread the virus. If it's 3:1 then one person means three the week after, nine two weeks after, 27 three weeks after, 81 four weeks after, and so on. If that happens the healthservice will break down in a couple of weeks.

Socitey won't be closed down until a vaccine is available, but herd immunity should also play a part. Which means we actually need people becoming sick, but only the right people. Those that won't die from it. And simultaniously they need to improve treatment, so that the amount of time people spend at hospitals is reduced.

So it's likely buying time now, before lifting some, not all, restrictions on some groups of people that probably will survive. But people that are infected should still be in isolation, even if they only have mild symptoms. 

But people will still get sick. You can't play in the Premier League if you have corona, and even players will get it. And in a few weeks time there will be a lot of people infected, especially if restrictions are lifted. 

As far as I understand players haven't had normal training for a couple of weeks already. And that will continue for some time. To even consider playing some kind of Festival of Football with unfit footballers in July is just stupid. At best they are unfit since they haven't been training properly. At worst they will have had or is currently having a serious respiratory infection. Some of them might even die. It won't be a Festival of Football, it will be more like a Freak Show. 

Daft question from me, but considering herd immunity is something talked about in terms of other diseases we've vaccinated us away from, how does it actually work in terms of spreading a disease? Say you got a 95% immunity going in a society, can those immune still transmit a disease they can't get sick from? 

[hippo]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Daft question from me, but considering herd immunity is something talked about in terms of other diseases we've vaccinated us away from, how does it actually work in terms of spreading a disease? Say you got a 95% immunity going in a society, can those immune still transmit a disease they can't get sick from? 

The theory is you need 60% immunity. Then the the virus wouldn't survive. But there are a lot of assumptions with herd immunity.

 

[Silent_Bob]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Daft question from me, but considering herd immunity is something talked about in terms of other diseases we've vaccinated us away from, how does it actually work in terms of spreading a disease? Say you got a 95% immunity going in a society, can those immune still transmit a disease they can't get sick from? 

No. That's the whole idea with herd immunity. A disease can't spred if a lot of people are immune, either through vaccination or through immunity after being sick themselves.

It kind of dies down if around 50% is immune to it.
One person, meeting 10 people will infect 10 if there is zero immunity. Only 5 if the immunity is 50%.
Next step will se 25 people infected vs 50 if zero immunity. Next step will se 125 people infected vs 500 if zero immunity. Next step will se 625 vs 5000, 3125 vs 50K, 15625 vs 500K, 78K vs 5 millions and so on.

Eventually the virus has no new hosts and it will end. But in reality you don't meet 10 strangers who then each meet 10 different people. A lot of this people will be the same people. So it was just a mathematical example.

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Silent_Bob

[KenjiOgiwara]

But they are saying the virus survives x amount of days on surfaces. What stops the virus transmitting from immune people as physical vectors? I guess the transmission would be very small compared, but is it still a relevant pathway? 

[alreadyexists]

26 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

But they are saying the virus survives x amount of days on surfaces. What stops the virus transmitting from immune people as physical vectors? I guess the transmission would be very small compared, but is it still a relevant pathway? 

 Viruses can’t multiply and replicate themselves, they need a host cell (human in this case). If someone is immune their cells effectively block the virus from using the human cell to reproduce and mean its dies without having multiplied. So as I understand it, an immune person can’t be a vector.

Herd immunity starts after about 60% of the population are immune. But that would kill a hell of a lot of people before we got to that stage. You’d have to have 80%+ of the population having it,  and 60% survive for that to happen, and 20% is a shit load of people to die (edit:  it would be about 1.4m people in the uk... staggering numbers)

I’m not an epidemiologist that’s just my understanding! 

Edited March 27, 2020 by alreadyexists

[villalad21]

1 hour ago, Silent_Bob said:

or through immunity after being sick themselves.

The most obvious and most realistic quick fix.

But most people wouldn't agree to getting intentionally infected i don't think.

[BG_Villa_Fan]

36 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

The most obvious and most realistic quick fix.

But most people wouldn't agree to getting intentionally infected i don't think.

Sure, if you want millions to die and every country's health system to collapse. 

Can't speak about herd immunity while you don't have a cure or vaccine. It's ludicrous.

[Elton]

53 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

Herd immunity starts after about 60% of the population are immune. But that would kill a hell of a lot of people before we got to that stage. You’d have to have 80%+ of the population having it,  and 60% survive for that to happen, and 20% is a shit load of people to die (edit:  it would be about 1.4m people in the uk... staggering numbers)

I’m not an epidemiologist that’s just my understanding! 

That mortality rate is a bit off though. Even the worst case scenario in the UK with no social distancing etc was around 500 000.

We don’t know the true mortality rate yet but it’s highly likely to be well below 1%. Hopefully 0.0something.

Current projections seem to peak in UK about 5 April and around 5700 deaths here. Although without herd immunity, a 2nd/3rd wave etc remains likely.

As such I think policy will be to allow lockdown to end and then probably enforce it again as cases pick up again in autumn. PL has no real chance of planning anything. No one really cares now about the PL so they can void it without any negative press if that’s what they care about.

[alreadyexists]

49 minutes ago, Elton said:

That mortality rate is a bit off though. Even the worst case scenario in the UK with no social distancing etc was around 500 000.

We don’t know the true mortality rate yet but it’s highly likely to be well below 1%. Hopefully 0.0something.

Current projections seem to peak in UK about 5 April and around 5700 deaths here. Although without herd immunity, a 2nd/3rd wave etc remains likely.

As such I think policy will be to allow lockdown to end and then probably enforce it again as cases pick up again in autumn. PL has no real chance of planning anything. No one really cares now about the PL so they can void it without any negative press if that’s what they care about.

Probably still too many people just to die though.

[Elton]

8 minutes ago, alreadyexists said:

Probably still too many people just to die though.

We as a society still need to weigh up if the prize is worth the cost though and to do that we need more accurate data.

This article is worth a look.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51979654

[PaulC]

6 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Bruce’s idea could actually work. They just need to stagger the games so there are 3/4 matches every day. 

And use squad rotation. It’s definately can be done if it’s safe to play football no later than July Imo. If the season is made void I think players should have their wages voided too. I know there’s legal problems with that but it’s what should happen 

[KenjiOgiwara]

2 hours ago, alreadyexists said:

 Viruses can’t multiply and replicate themselves, they need a host cell (human in this case). If someone is immune their cells effectively block the virus from using the human cell to reproduce and mean its dies without having multiplied. So as I understand it, an immune person can’t be a vector.

Herd immunity starts after about 60% of the population are immune. But that would kill a hell of a lot of people before we got to that stage. You’d have to have 80%+ of the population having it,  and 60% survive for that to happen, and 20% is a shit load of people to die (edit:  it would be about 1.4m people in the uk... staggering numbers)

I’m not an epidemiologist that’s just my understanding! 

That can't be correct as there would be no need to desanitize areas. I agree on the multiplication bit, but physical objects must surely be a risk in terms of transfer.