StefanAVFC Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 32 minutes ago, Genie said: We know that the virus moves from person to person via the droplets being exhaled as they breathe. People breathe a lot faster and harder when doing sports and in close proximity of others. Yes, footballers can pick it up in other places too, It was more the “zero evidence of...” comment that is clearly incorrect. My comment is based on the summer. We had multiple examples of close contact in open spaces wit the beach photos and zero super spreader events. Outdoor transmission is barely a thing, regardless of the harder and faster breathing. Your 'How do all the footballers who test positive catch it?' comment shows a real misunderstanding of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: My comment is based on the summer. We had multiple examples of close contact in open spaces wit the beach photos and zero super spreader events. Outdoor transmission is barely a thing, regardless of the harder and faster breathing. Your 'How do all the footballers who test positive catch it?' comment shows a real misunderstanding of the situation. Not really. It’s entirely plausible that people playing sports like football could infect others. Your “zero evidence” comment was in reference to the sports. Sitting on beach or in a park is very different, and I agree, much lower risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 39 minutes ago, Genie said: Yes, footballers can pick it up in other places too, It was more the “zero evidence of...” comment that is clearly incorrect. Do you have some evidence of transmission during sporting activity? I'm not ruling it out, but I'm very skeptical, so if you have some particular evidence in mind I'd love to see it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 23 hours ago, Kingman said: Read it again!.. Oops. Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Do you have some evidence of transmission during sporting activity? I'm not ruling it out, but I'm very skeptical, so if you have some particular evidence in mind I'd love to see it. This seems like a ridiculous comment. Do you seriously think that talking to someone has a viable chance of transmitting the virus, but for some reason having someone huffing and puffing in your face isn’t? Where’s the evidence Edited March 29, 2021 by Genie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 Just now, Genie said: This seems like a ridiculous comment. Do you seriously think that talking to someone has a viable chance of transmitting the virus, but for some reason having someone huffing and puffing in your face isn’t? Why is it 'ridiculous' to ask you for evidence to support your assertion? You're an intelligent guy, you can understand the difference between 'evidence that something is true' and 'a hypothesis of why something might be true'. You've offered a hypothesis as to why you think outdoor transmission during sporting activity could occur; fine. I am skeptical about this, because there have been either zero or near-zero documented outdoor superspreading occurances. However, I am open to persuasion if you can provide some evidence. When @StefanAVFC said there was 'zero evidence' of this, you said that 'comment . . . is clearly incorrect'. How do you know it is incorrect? Have you seen some evidence (fair enough), or are you just saying it is 'clearly incorrect' based on your hypothesis (which obviously does not make something 'clearly incorrect')? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: Why is it 'ridiculous' to ask you for evidence to support your assertion? You're an intelligent guy, you can understand the difference between 'evidence that something is true' and 'a hypothesis of why something might be true'. You've offered a hypothesis as to why you think outdoor transmission during sporting activity could occur; fine. I am skeptical about this, because there have been either zero or near-zero documented outdoor superspreading occurances. However, I am open to persuasion if you can provide some evidence. When @StefanAVFC said there was 'zero evidence' of this, you said that 'comment . . . is clearly incorrect'. How do you know it is incorrect? Have you seen some evidence (fair enough), or are you just saying it is 'clearly incorrect' based on your hypothesis (which obviously does not make something 'clearly incorrect')? It’s like saying “where is the evidence that punching someone harder hurts more”. Common sense alone is “some evidence” because we know how the virus transmits from person to person and if you crank up the breathing and proximity then it doesn’t magically filter out the bad bits because it’s a sports field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 Seems we have a lot of virology experts on here after the past 12 months....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 5 minutes ago, Genie said: Common sense alone is “some evidence” because we know how the virus transmits from person to person and if you crank up the breathing and proximity then it doesn’t magically filter out the bad bits because it’s a sports field. I'm not sure if you're being serious here It quite clearly doesn't spread as effectively because a sports field is not a contained space and the droplets are hundreds of thousands times more spread out in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 1 minute ago, Genie said: It’s like saying “where is the evidence that punching someone harder hurts more”. Common sense alone is “some evidence” because we know how the virus transmits from person to person and if you crank up the breathing and proximity then it doesn’t magically filter out the bad bits because it’s a sports field. So you don't know that what Stefan said is 'clearly incorrect' then. I don't agree that your 'common sense' constitutes evidence. What we do know, from more than a year of data now, is that there have been either zero or near-zero documented outdoor superspreading events. I don't really see why occasional contact during a football match would change these dynamics, especially since football does not usually contain prolonged exposure in very close proximity to one other person. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 29, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 29, 2021 On 26/03/2021 at 10:49, StefanAVFC said: Unbelievably irresponsible. These experts have had the largest stiffy for a year now, keeping us scared. Also how can someone claim that the red list approach doesn't work? You have to book and pay well over the odds in advance for 10 days in a hotel (I don't know which have signed up but I'll use that term loosely) and 3 Covid tests, on top of an additional one before boarding the plane. This at least allows people to fly if it's essential (and they can afford the extravagant costs) whilst all but preventing any possible spread of infection. If that approach doesn't work (and I like to see the stats upon which they've reached that conclusion) it's because it isn't being managed properly, not because the policy isn't strict enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: So you don't know that what Stefan said is 'clearly incorrect' then. I don't agree that your 'common sense' constitutes evidence. What we do know, from more than a year of data now, is that there have been either zero or near-zero documented outdoor superspreading events. I don't really see why occasional contact during a football match would change these dynamics, especially since football does not usually contain prolonged exposure in very close proximity to one other person. Going all Rafa. Fact: Lots of footballers and sports people have caught the virus and it spread quickly through their clubs. Reply: “oh but they could have caught it somewhere else” Fact: It’s caught by inhaling droplets breathed out by someone infected Reply: “where’s your evidence this can happen during a sports game where people are close together and breathing heavily?” What a silly thing to be denying carries risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 1 minute ago, Genie said: Going all Rafa. Fact: Lots of footballers and sports people have caught the virus and it spread quickly through their clubs. Reply: “oh but they could have caught it somewhere else” Fact: It’s caught by inhaling droplets breathed out by someone infected Reply: “where’s your evidence this can happen during a sports game where people are close together and breathing heavily?” What a silly thing to be denying carries risk. Man, we're living through a public health emergency. It's actually important to try to find out what activities are more risky and what are less risky. If you think that your chinny reckons are an adequate replacement for evidence, I guess I can't force you to reconsider, but I would urge you to think about it. I don't think there's any point in further back-and-forth on this. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 That's not how the conversation though went though. You asked how footballers caught it, if not on the pitch, without even considering the much more likely places they would have caught it. It spread through clubs because footballers are incredibly close together in all aspects of their lives. On the pitch, they're probably the furthest apart. One person likely caught it elsewhere, and it spread via the training ground, gyms, physios, changing rooms etc. As @HanoiVillan has said, there have been no documented examples of spread events from outdoor transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 29, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) It is indeed extremely difficult to imagine how Dion Dublin could have infected Robbie Savage with a respiratory disease in this situation. Sadly it appears he wasn't carrying a deadly disease at this time. Edited March 29, 2021 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 29, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 29, 2021 27 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Why is it 'ridiculous' to ask you for evidence to support your assertion? You're an intelligent guy, you can understand the difference between 'evidence that something is true' and 'a hypothesis of why something might be true'. You've offered a hypothesis as to why you think outdoor transmission during sporting activity could occur; fine. I am skeptical about this, because there have been either zero or near-zero documented outdoor superspreading occurances. However, I am open to persuasion if you can provide some evidence. When @StefanAVFC said there was 'zero evidence' of this, you said that 'comment . . . is clearly incorrect'. How do you know it is incorrect? Have you seen some evidence (fair enough), or are you just saying it is 'clearly incorrect' based on your hypothesis (which obviously does not make something 'clearly incorrect')? Maybe there is no evidence because sport was banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Man, we're living through a public health emergency. It's actually important to try to find out what activities are more risky and what are less risky. If you think that your chinny reckons are an adequate replacement for evidence, I guess I can't force you to reconsider, but I would urge you to think about it. I don't think there's any point in further back-and-forth on this. the denial is so strong. It’s not “chinny reckon” as you put it. It’s built on the foundation at the core of how the virus transmits. The “it won’t happen on a sports field despite the obvious increase in breathing and proximity” is far more implausible than what I’ve said. It’s can’t be true because nobody has published a study on it. I’ll leave my common sense in the drawer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 29, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted March 29, 2021 15 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Seems we have a lot of virology experts on here after the past 12 months....... Seems like a lot of actual qualified virology experts said playing sport, unless under extremely controlled conditions, was not a good idea. Again, we seem to have this ludicrous attitude of some that the Government just ban people doing stuff for shits and giggles. It's actually hilarious that you are making accusations of amateur virology experts when the OP actually said that banning sport was ridiculous........well who is the one who doesn't know anything about it disagreeing with the actual experts then? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 1 minute ago, sidcow said: Maybe there is no evidence because sport was banned? But that's not true, is it? Elite sport hasn't been banned, and indeed there's been good reason for clubs to be greatly interested in the question of when and how the virus is transmitted. Amateur sport was allowed throughout most of this country in summer and autumn, and similarly was allowed in several European countries, or parts thereof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 29, 2021 Share Posted March 29, 2021 Mate, why are you ignoring what's being said over and over again? Football is played in the open air. Open air dilutes the amount of droplets by a factor of thousands. This reduces the transmissibility by thousands. Your entire hypothesis is based on sticking your wet finger in the air and measuring the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts