Generic Virus Thread

[mjmooney]

3 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

 

[a m ole]

46 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Players are tested all the time, there is almost zero chance of a positive player from one club playing another.  I am not sure if the same strict rules would apply for The Rose and Crown v The White Horse.

Our results came within 2 days of that game though - they must have caught it a few days before the positive test result and around the time of the negative one.

[a m ole]

36 minutes ago, stuart_75 said:

No mention of footballers catching COVID by sharing the same sex-workers 

Way more likely.

[HanoiVillan]

Decided to take some time to look for the evidence that isn't being provided, and here is a summary of articles found through Shibboleth and Google Scholar:

• Egger et al (2021) - Does playing football (soccer) lead to SARS-CoV-2 transmission? - A case study of 3 matches with 18 infected football players - in Science and Medicine in Football (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24733938.2021.1895442?casa_token=mvZiE07W9gAAAAAA%3A0s450TwdGfZ191GQsdGjDhMykbXUs0su75XzjuKJDnGzUDx-BMU2mL5r6peZhMg40LM8xtpezrM), performed a video analysis 'over 3 matches with 18 SARS-CoV-2 positive players (age: 17.6 ± 3.1 years; 2 professional, 2 semi-professional and 14 youth academy players) during the pre-season in August and September 2020 in Germany.' The main result was 'no case of virus transmission was found as documented by RT-PCR tests (and symptom monitoring up to 14 days post-match). Physical contact between contagious and non-infected players never lasted longer than 3 seconds each and the position of players during duels was almost exclusively laterally or behind each other.'
• Watson et al (2021) - COVID-19 in Youth Soccer During Summer 2020 - in Journal of Athletic Training (https://meridian.allenpress.com/jat/article/doi/10.4085/610-20/462274/COVID-19-in-Youth-Soccer-During-Summer-2020), compared covid incidence rates among youth soccer players and children across the United States. They divided the youth soccer players into three groups, those doing individual training, those doing non-contact games, and those doing contact games (these were called 'phases of return'). The result? 'Youth soccer players had a lower case rate and incidence rate than children in the US . . . and the general population from the counties where data was available . . . After adjusting for local COVID-19 incidence, there was no relationship between club COVID-19 incidence and phase of return . . . The incidence of COVID-19 among youth soccer athletes is relatively low when compared to the background incidence among children in the United States in summer of 2020. No relationship was identified between club COVID-19 incidence and phase of return to soccer.'
• Schumacher et al (2021) - Resuming professional football (soccer) during the COVID-19 pandemic in a country with high infection rates: a prospective cohort study - in British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/14/bjsports-2020-103724?utm_content=americas&utm_campaign=usage&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=trendmd), studied 1337 players, staff and officials in the Qatari Super League. The results were 'the infection rate was consistent with that of the general population during the same time period . . . Social contacts and family were the most common sources of infection, and no infection could be traced to training or matches . . . Football played outdoors involving close contact between athletes represents a limited risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe illness when preventive measures are in place.'
• Drezner et al - COVID-19 Surveillance in Youth Soccer During Small Group Training: A Safe Return to Sports Activity - in Sports Health: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1941738120964458?casa_token=X4cHo8kMczAAAAAA:lhAUTEVkcw9T9Umq4-2ROcfOw7eCb_UqjqPb9tr09CP-Yc4UjHqJykVYBSQDOzdn7Ss_B15YD9w), studied Seattle United, a network of youth soccer teams in the Seattle area, with players aged 7-18. Checking 15,494 players who attended practice, they found that 'Only 2 players tested positive for COVID-19 during the study period, both acquiring the infection from outside of Seattle United soccer activities . . . Small group youth soccer training, when appropriately physically distanced, is safe and does not promote or accelerate spread of COVID-19 because of sports activities. In this study, all new cases identified in players or family members came from the community, with no case of player to player or coach to player spread during the 42-day study period . . . When comparing the prevalence of COVID-19 in King County to the equivalent prevalence within Seattle United, the number of new cases was 57% lower in Seattle United players than the general community.'

I could go on - there's more - but I think you can begin to discern a picture here.

[Genie]

1 hour ago, a m ole said:

One thing I will say, is that we haven’t seen evidence of transmission club to club - for example no cases at Man Utd after we played them 2 days before we had how many cases? You’d expect to see some link between matches played if there was significant increased risk with sport playing.

The premier league publishes the positive tests, but doesn’t reveal the breakdown by club.

The week we closed down 4th-10th Jan there were 36 positive cases, the most recorded so far.

 A good chunk would be ours, but some of the others could potentially be Man United I suppose. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Genie

[bickster]

We've just gone through an entire 6 Nations Rugby Union series with only 1 Covid affected team and the source of that infection is believed to be players and the head coach breaking the teams bubble (or from Hotel staff in the bubble) and not actually playing the game

Rugby is far more close contact than football ever will be

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

We've just gone through an entire 6 Nations Rugby Union series with only 1 Covid affected team and the source of that infection is believed to be players and the head coach breaking the teams bubble (or from Hotel staff in the bubble) and not actually playing the game

Rugby is far more close contact than football ever will be

You’d expect there to be more contact in rugby but apparently the bottom couple of clubs were so awful they hardly landed a genuine tackle in five games.

 

[Genie]

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I could go on - there's more - but I think you can begin to discern a picture here.

The vibe seems to be that if you’re outdoors it is much less likely to catch Covid than being indoors. All agreed I think.

Its not impossible or infeasible to catch it outdoors as there are numerous cases which point that way.

As it’s impossible to say with certainty where infected people got it, like with elite footballers, the French rugby team or Seattle United players as examples you could just say “they caught it somewhere else” to support the theory that it’s impossible to catch it on a sports field.

[HanoiVillan]

33 minutes ago, bickster said:

We've just gone through an entire 6 Nations Rugby Union series with only 1 Covid affected team and the source of that infection is believed to be players and the head coach breaking the teams bubble (or from Hotel staff in the bubble) and not actually playing the game

Rugby is far more close contact than football ever will be

I actually found data re rugby as well when looking, just didn't include it as it's a different sport but the story is largely similar:

Jones et al - SARS-CoV-2 transmission during team-sport: Do players develop COVID-19 after participating in rugby league matches with SARS-CoV-2 positive players? - in British Journal of Sports Medicine (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.03.20225284v1)

'The eight SARS-CoV-2 positive players were involved in up to 14 tackles with other individual players. SARS-CoV-2 positive players were within a 2 m proximity of other players for up to 316 secs, from 60 interactions. One identified contact returned a positive SARS-CoV-2 result within 14 days of the match (subsequently linked to an outbreak within their club environment, rather than in-match transmission), whereas the other 27 identified contacts returned negative SARS-CoV-2 follow up tests and no one developed COVID-19 symptoms. Ninety-five players returned negative and five players returned positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR routine tests within 14 days of the match. Sources of transmission in the five cases were linked to internal club COVID-19 outbreaks and wider-community transmission . . . Despite a high number of tackle involvements and close proximity interactions between SARS-CoV-2 positive players and players on the same and opposition teams during a rugby league match, these data suggest that in-game SARS-CoV-2 transmission is limited during these types of team sport activities played outdoors.'

 

[Stevo985]

Nice to see Boris saying everyone should try to get back to the office because people working from home have had enough "time off" over the past year.

The massive word removed

[Mic09]

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Nice to see Boris saying everyone should try to get back to the office because people working from home have had enough "time off" over the past year.

The massive word removed

Sunak was hinting at the same last week.

They are simply looking for change behind the sofa - if you catch a train to work you (often); buy a ticket, buy a coffee, buy some lunch, buy a pint after work, buy a ticket back. All taxable goods.

Another thing is office building standing empty, no cleaners, receptionists, security. They won't have a job, an neither will the architect of the next London office skyscraper, or the construction worker who was going to build it.

People working from home is not good for Boris' tax pocket. 

[Genie]

Places like London could be at risk of a big property price crash too if they’re not careful. 

I’m sure plenty of MP’s and donors would be vulnerable to that.

 

[markavfc40]

27 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Nice to see Boris saying everyone should try to get back to the office because people working from home have had enough "time off" over the past year.

The massive word removed

I saw that he had said that yesterday. The 50% of my job that I used to do in the office that I now do from home means I am working harder and longer hours than ever as I have lost that home/work divide and struggle to switch off, especially with f all else to do at the moment. Nice to hear the blonde bullshitter voice his appreciation. 

[The Fun Factory]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Places like London could be at risk of a big property price crash too if they’re not careful. 

I’m sure plenty of MP’s and donors would be vulnerable to that.

 

Yep. It will not be sustainable for a lot of large companies to keep on maintaining huge offices if staff only come in 2-3 days a week max. It would be a under occupied asset which in places like London will be sky high rental and maintenance costs.

Bo Jo and the rest of his pals want us to go back to the office to spend lots of money on sandwiches and transport. I suspect there are millions who would rather save thousands of pounds a year not to, as it has proven that many of us can work from home just as effectively.

Its all well and good to say lets have the best of both world but the high street suggests this will not be the case. If I was a office rental company or had significant investment in them I would be seriously worried. They are screwed.

[Stevo985]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

I saw that he had said that yesterday. The 50% of my job that I used to do in the office that I now do from home means I am working harder and longer hours than ever as I have lost that home/work divide and struggle to switch off, especially with f all else to do at the moment. Nice to hear the blonde bullshitter voice his appreciation. 

I think that's where pretty much everyone is at. With things set up to work from home it's much easier to switch the laptop on and do an hour or two here and there on the weekend when usually I would never bother (unless there was something I specifically had to do for a deadline)

It's the kind of archaic thinking that I had hoped Covid would have forced people to abandon. Basically that people can't be trusted and if you're not under the watchful eye of a big boss in the office you'll just laze around and do **** all instead of doing your job.
Generally people will do their job. And the kind of employee that is going to laze around at home and not do any work is probably the kind of employee that wouldn't be very good in any working environment.

Like I said I had hoped that Covid would have forced people to realise that working from home is a completely viable and in fact cheaper way to work. But with that fat lying despicable mince stuffed carrier bag in charge we've got no chance

[Mic09]

8 minutes ago, Genie said:

Places like London could be at risk of a big property price crash too if they’re not careful. 

I’m sure plenty of MP’s and donors would be vulnerable to that.

 

Who in their right mind (except for local people, families etc) would want to live in London if they will only work there once a week? I can't see many grads and young professionals moving there and paying massive rents if they can get half price apartments in Birmingham or Coventry. 

Another thing that BoJo can have another think about is what the hell is the point of HS2 now? All those corporate busshhnesshhhmeeeen finally see that they don't have two travel for 2 hours for a business meeting - so whats the point in wasting £100b on this, even more useless now, project? 

[Genie]

I used to be out of the door on the dot every day I was in the office because of the traffic building up every 15 minutes I deferred.

Now I’ll work over pretty much every day to get odds and ends tied up.

I am getting loads more work done than ever before.

I don’t think my boss, or his boss will push to get people back in the office as they can see it works well for us. The risk is if the big boss forces it on everyone.

 

[a m ole]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think that's where pretty much everyone is at. With things set up to work from home it's much easier to switch the laptop on and do an hour or two here and there on the weekend when usually I would never bother (unless there was something I specifically had to do for a deadline)

It's the kind of archaic thinking that I had hoped Covid would have forced people to abandon. Basically that people can't be trusted and if you're not under the watchful eye of a big boss in the office you'll just laze around and do **** all instead of doing your job.
Generally people will do their job. And the kind of employee that is going to laze around at home and not do any work is probably the kind of employee that wouldn't be very good in any working environment.

Like I said I had hoped that Covid would have forced people to realise that working from home is a completely viable and in fact cheaper way to work. But with that fat lying despicable mince stuffed carrier bag in charge we've got no chance

I think people who do actual jobs aren’t thinking the same way, including most management and C-suite.

This is the same government and Parliament that don’t turn up to vote and decided they were gonna take the summer off when we were negotiating brexit.

[Mic09]

14 minutes ago, Genie said:

I don’t think my boss, or his boss will push to get people back in the office as they can see it works well for us. The risk is if the big boss forces it on everyone.

 

Your boss is probably on the same boat - they can now take their kids to the nursery, go for a lunchtime run, eat healthier home cooked food while still working just as hard - and see their little kid go to bed rather than being stuck on a late train.

It's a no brainer, but like I mentioned, it's probably bad news for BoJos tax pockets.

[The Fun Factory]

In the wacky world of local government the UK government have refused the extension of the current allowance of virtual planning hearings as they haven't got the time to look at it.

This means that local government will have to host physical meetings in May even though for Westminster this is not happening until June, and some offices are still not covid secure.

Virtual hearings has had a lot of positive feedback as it allows many other people to attend and reduces  the chance of  grandstanding speeches. More transparent and democratic but not in the UK Gov viewpoint.