A Taste Of Things To Come

[sallycat]

Aug 25, 2020 18:35:03 GMT mitcham_badlander said:

I normally loathe mixing football with politics (except my unwavering support for the PROWS) but I think we can fairly say that this year politics has been foisted on us; and in my view it is politics, not a pandemic as I would recognise it, and the government's scientists now run the country to the detriment of everything else.  To make my point, I might quote some extracts from what Prof Mark Woolhouse OBE, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the government, said in yesterday's Daily Express:

"Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."

"We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school. I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19."

"I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19. This is why we need a broader range of people on the government advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes, jobs and livelihoods, educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among young adults, as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match."

"At the time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn't think of anything better to do*, but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally."

I wish our heroic directors and staff the best of luck navigating the quagmire of pointless regulations and beg that you please don't take away any more of our freedom than you're obliged to by law. 


*How about not panicking like teenagers and letting the thing ride itself out like every cold season? It was obvious from pictures of Wuhan on the telly this wasn't Black Death 2. If you believed Neil Ferguson's obviously flawed projections at the time, do you really deserve that professorship? Apparently it was only me, Peter Hitchens and about 15% of the population who saw through the whole thing from the get-go. If I ran the country &c

You've cherry-picked a lot of quotes from one person there. That's not a balanced view.

If you look at countries that managed the pandemic well (i.e. lower transmission and death rates) they locked down harder and earlier than we did.

As for "riding it out" like a regular flu, I work with adult social care services. One of my care homes had to admit someone with the virus. They subsequently reported thirty-three deaths in three weeks. Another home had eleven deaths in three days. Cold and flu season comes and goes every year. It does not do this.

[boomboom]

Aug 26, 2020 7:05:27 GMT sallycat said:

Aug 25, 2020 18:35:03 GMT mitcham_badlander said:

I normally loathe mixing football with politics (except my unwavering support for the PROWS) but I think we can fairly say that this year politics has been foisted on us; and in my view it is politics, not a pandemic as I would recognise it, and the government's scientists now run the country to the detriment of everything else.  To make my point, I might quote some extracts from what Prof Mark Woolhouse OBE, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the government, said in yesterday's Daily Express:

"Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."

"We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school. I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19."

"I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19. This is why we need a broader range of people on the government advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes, jobs and livelihoods, educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among young adults, as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match."

"At the time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn't think of anything better to do*, but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally."

I wish our heroic directors and staff the best of luck navigating the quagmire of pointless regulations and beg that you please don't take away any more of our freedom than you're obliged to by law. 


*How about not panicking like teenagers and letting the thing ride itself out like every cold season? It was obvious from pictures of Wuhan on the telly this wasn't Black Death 2. If you believed Neil Ferguson's obviously flawed projections at the time, do you really deserve that professorship? Apparently it was only me, Peter Hitchens and about 15% of the population who saw through the whole thing from the get-go. If I ran the country &c

You've cherry-picked a lot of quotes from one person there. That's not a balanced view.

If you look at countries that managed the pandemic well (i.e. lower transmission and death rates) they locked down harder and earlier than we did.

As for "riding it out" like a regular flu, I work with adult social care services. One of my care homes had to admit someone with the virus. They subsequently reported thirty-three deaths in three weeks. Another home had eleven deaths in three days. Cold and flu season comes and goes every year. It does not do this.

Prof Woolhouse seems to want it both ways.   He says that lockdown was a "panic measure" then later that he "agreed with it at the time".    

As for wearing a mask, I'd much prefer not to but if it's mandatory I will do. 

[sallycat]

To be fair, that's not necessarily a contradiction. He could be saying he agreed with it at the time but in hindsight he now thinks he was panicking like everyone else.

[Andy K]

Aug 25, 2020 18:35:03 GMT mitcham_badlander said:

I normally loathe mixing football with politics (except my unwavering support for the PROWS) but I think we can fairly say that this year politics has been foisted on us; and in my view it is politics, not a pandemic as I would recognise it, and the government's scientists now run the country to the detriment of everything else.  To make my point, I might quote some extracts from what Prof Mark Woolhouse OBE, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours that advises the government, said in yesterday's Daily Express:

"Lockdown was a panic measure and I believe history will say trying to control Covid-19 through lockdown was a monumental mistake on a global scale, the cure was worse than the disease."

"We absolutely should never return to a position where children cannot play or go to school. I believe the harm lockdown is doing to our education, health care access, and broader aspects of our economy and society will turn out to be at least as great as the harm done by Covid-19."

"I suspect right now more people are being harmed by the collateral effects of lockdown than by Covid-19. This is why we need a broader range of people on the government advisory board Sage with equal input from economists to assess the damage to incomes, jobs and livelihoods, educationalists to assess the damage to children and mental health specialists to assess levels of depression and anxiety especially among young adults, as well as psychologists to assess the effects of not being able to go to the theatre or a football match."

"At the time I agreed with lockdown as a short term emergency response because we couldn't think of anything better to do*, but it was always clear that the moment we started to relax enough measures we were likely to see infection rates rise again either nationally or locally."

I wish our heroic directors and staff the best of luck navigating the quagmire of pointless regulations and beg that you please don't take away any more of our freedom than you're obliged to by law. 


*How about not panicking like teenagers and letting the thing ride itself out like every cold season? It was obvious from pictures of Wuhan on the telly this wasn't Black Death 2. If you believed Neil Ferguson's obviously flawed projections at the time, do you really deserve that professorship? Apparently it was only me, Peter Hitchens and about 15% of the population who saw through the whole thing from the get-go. If I ran the country &c

With all due respect, the fact you think that politics has been foisted on us and then quote an obviously one sided argument, you've undermined any valid point and reasoned argument you've possibly had. And your line to the directors about "please don't take away any more freedom than you are obliged to do by law" I find really degrading to our directors to be frank.

As a club we're in a position where we have to abide by rules set by the government, the FA and the league. If we don't we don't exist. The directors have a duty of care for all who attend, players, officials, supporters, the lot. I trust in them making the right decisions to keep us all as safe as possible, and mitigate as many risks as possible. To then suggest the club could take away more "freedoms" is an awful thing to say. You have the freedom not to come to the club if you don't like their approach. That's your freedom. In the ground, you play by the clubs rules. And that has nothing to do with politics.

[mitcham_badlander]

I disagree that the directors should seek to "mitigate as many risks as possible". The club could spend a great deal of time and money trying to do that and achieve nothing. I don't think that the club should seek to mitigate any more of the so-called risks than they're obliged to by the law/rules (being the politics foisted on us).

It was reported that in the few weeks after masks were made mandatory in supermarkets there were millions fewer visits, and if we do the same thing then fewer people will attend matches. Put simply the more "difficult" it is for a person to attend then the less likely it is that they will. It could be one 'big' issue like mandatory face masks, or lots of 'small' issues like advance ticketing, restrictions on singing, standing and seating arrangements etc.; and therefore I think we need to make the experience as light touch as we possibly can and resist calls to go beyond what the law/rules require us to.

In jest I would add that the club also has a public health duty to stage football matches with as few obstacles to the spectator as possible to alleviate the wider negative psychological effects of not being able to attend football matches, as noted by the professor I quoted above

[davef]

Unfortunately there is no "light touch", which is why we posted the original feature, to help our supporters become aware of the very significant changes that will need to be made when football with crowds does return. As already identified, if we do not comply with every requirement of the league and the Licensing Officer then the stadium will remain closed and, of course, the obligation on directors to mitigate risks is already enshrined in law.

[mitcham_badlander]

I don't disagree with you Mr F but my point, as I think others have also made, is that the club shouldn't need to go beyond the strict requirements imposed on us by the law/league/licensing officer etc. by making further rules/requirements for spectators which are essentially the club's own interpretation of what additional actions it should take, i.e. an excessive and unnecessary mitigation of risk. [This may be wrong but I believe that Carshalton introduced compulsory face masks recently at a couple of matches when this isn't a strict requirement of the league/licensing officer, for example.]

The directors have the right to interpret how their duty of care is implemented in practice, but I'm sceptical as to whether the club could be accused of having failed in that duty if it decided not to go beyond the strict requirements imposed on us by the league/licensing officer, firstly because I think it would be difficult to establish a chain of causation between the club and someone getting infected/dying from Covid-19 in the first place, and secondly because if the club has complied with the league/licensing officer's requirements (which are undoubtedly extensive) then that should be adequate mitigation against any accusation of a breach of duty in itself. As a business we have to strike a balance between complying with the extra rules being brought in and bringing in crowds, and I simply don't want to see the club going all-out on the former at the expense of the latter.

[davef]

I can guarantee that we will not be looking to impose requirements where we don't need to. We absolutely want to maximise the attendance ! The one major grey area is around face coverings, and it is already clear that whatever we decide to do will not be popular with an element of our support. And that's probably a microcosm of the wider issues, some people will think the rules go too far and others will think they don't go far enough.

[kpinwp]

While I would not frame the risks as 'so-called' as Mitcham Badlander does (although, perhaps, over estimated), I do think there is a point to what he says.

The club certainly should and must comply with every requirement set by the authorities to mitigate the risks that are enshrined in law. By the methods they specify. But that does not necessitate the club acting as an extra advisory authority vis a vis the fans entering the stadium. Advice that would quite likely be ignored by a significant portion of the fans, anyway. I don't think that would do any of us any favours.

[timall]

Aug 26, 2020 18:34:58 GMT kpinwp said:

The club certainly should and must comply with every requirement set by the authorities to mitigate the risks that are enshrined in law. By the methods they specify. But that does not necessitate the club acting as an extra advisory authority vis a vis the fans entering the stadium. Advice that would quite likely be ignored by a significant portion of the fans, anyway. I don't think that would do any of us any favours.

To be clear though, as you are referring to the (potential) behaviour of fans. Whatever measures the Club introduces to comply with the requirements of the authorities, and the licensing officer it is incumbent on all fans to abide by those as even non-adherence by an "insignificant portion" of spectators could result in the authorities and licensing officer withdrawing permission for games to go ahead, or spectators to attend if they do go ahead.

It is far from easy.

[andycapp]

Good luck with sorting out the socially distancing standing on the Shoe Box. There will murder on the dance floor

[kpinwp]

Aug 26, 2020 19:07:14 GMT timall said:

Aug 26, 2020 18:34:58 GMT kpinwp said:

The club certainly should and must comply with every requirement set by the authorities to mitigate the risks that are enshrined in law. By the methods they specify. But that does not necessitate the club acting as an extra advisory authority vis a vis the fans entering the stadium. Advice that would quite likely be ignored by a significant portion of the fans, anyway. I don't think that would do any of us any favours.

To be clear though, as you are referring to the (potential) behaviour of fans. Whatever measures the Club introduces to comply with the requirements of the authorities, and the licensing officer it is incumbent on all fans to abide by those as even non-adherence by an "insignificant portion" of spectators could result in the authorities and licensing officer withdrawing permission for games to go ahead, or spectators to attend if they do go ahead.

It is far from easy.

Yes, indeed, very difficult.

What I am saying, specifically as regards masks, is that if the club concludes from the requirements set by the authorities that masks should be worn inside the ground in order to mitigate infection spread then the club should make that a regulation of entry. If that is not their conclusion then, leave it up to us. What I don't want the club to do is to decide that the wearing of masks doesn't need to be mandatory but then advise us to wear them anyway (as some kind of safety, belt and braces, bolt on). Because that tips the whole question into ambiguity which I feel will cause active division among the fans. And, as I think Gareth observed, would unnecessarily create one more headache among several, already exisiting, big ones.

Ensuring that all of the fans comply with social distancing, as andycapp has highlighted, may be difficult enough.

[kpinwp]

Aug 26, 2020 19:12:27 GMT andycapp said:

Good luck with sorting out the socially distancing standing on the Shoe Box. There will murder on the dance floor

As to those who stand on the Shoebox. I assume that they would regard themselves as among the greatest and most loyal fans of the club.

So, in football parlance, they'll just have to behave themselves, won't they? Or it won't just be themselves they'll be letting down.

Which also applies to everyone who congregates behind the goal mouths. Which often includes me.

[Andy K]

The salient point is, and will always be, that I trust the club more than enough to do the right thing. They know the parameters, they know the law, they know the regulations specific to their venue better than all of us. They also won't do anything deliberately to risk any individual that comes into the ground or club. If the club say "wearing a mask isn't compulsory, but we advise it", then unless there is an appropriate (and usually medical) reason not to wear one, then perhaps the right attitude is to wear one. Not because you are told to, but because the club you love is advising you to.

The bottom line is that those making the decisions on trying to make the ground Covid safe will know a hell of a lot more about it than the casual fan and are putting all their efforts into doing the right thing.

[kpinwp]

Personally I'm quite sympathetic to the point that you're making, Andy. But it does rest on what I think of as the 'I do what Mummy advises as I love Mummy and Mummy is wiser than me' position. That will take you a long way, until Mummy advises something that I really don't want to do and have picked up conflicting advice about.

In this case, face masks, although very widely adhered to when compulsory are not in themselves much liked. Addtionally (to the best of my knowledge) there is no other outdoor area in which the wearing of them is either compuslory or advised. Correct me if I'm wrong on the latter.

If I recall, most of the people on this thread who have offered a personal take on this have said that they would wear masks if required to but would rather not if they don't have to. (Apologies for not double checking that)

Would it be possible, or worth, the club conducting some sort of poll about this, though? Masks-advisory-would you wear? We only constitute a tiny sample of fan opinion on here, but even here there are clearly a variety of views on this.