Let Fans In

[Neon_Knight_]

I guess it depends what your definition of a 'fairly hard lockdown' is. We did insist on people staying indoors apart from brief exercise and prevented people from visiting relatives or travelling around. A lot of that has now been relaxed but I think it will probably return in the near future as infection rates rise.

I fully expect significant new measure to come in from Monday. Perhaps Boris will just shift pub closing times to 9pm this time though

 

[Lilbaz]

If we assume UK airports were use a PCR test for all passengers before they leave the airport:

• Only 7% of COVID-19 carriers would test positive. Many of the other 93% may have only contracted the virus within the last few hours - at the airport or during the flight - some will only have the virus on their body/clothes/belongings when they leave the airport, but will be infected later.
• The 7% who do test positive would only find out a couple of days later, so would need to have self-isolated in the interim - then quarantine due to having the virus.
• All other passengers (the 93% of carriers + the majority of passenger who don't have the virus) need to assume they carry the virus until they receive the results of a test done 5 days later (so results confirmed about 7 days after landing), so need to self-isolate for 7 days even if they ultimately don't have the virus.
• Following the second round of testing:
  • Most of the remaining 93% of carriers will test positive and go into quarantine.
  • Some positive cases will still be missed, as the tests aren't 100% accurate. These people will now be out in public transmitting the virus, instead of quarantining for 14 days.
  • The large majority of passengers is now able to able to return to normal life, after 7 days of self-isolation (their quarantine was halved from 14 days to 7 days).

Personally, I think flight should be almost entirely banned for now, but there should at least be far more controls and restrictions in place. In order for flights to not be a massive cause of transmission, something along the line of the following would be needed:

• Testing carried out privately, to avoid negative impact upon NHS (testing is already at capacity)
• Cost of testing added onto ticket price
• Tested 5 days prior to flight, then (assuming negative), self-isolate until day of the flight - this is what NHS patients have to do for surgery!
• Tested at airport upon landing, then self-isolate.
• Tested 5 days after landing - stop self-isolating if negative / continue self-isolating if positive.
• Repeat for the return flight.
• This totals 6 tests and 15 days of self-isolating for a passenger who doesn't have the virus - sounds like a fun holiday!!!

Having looked into reports about the 30-second test in more detail, it only has an accuracy of 85%. If they're using the term "accuracy" in the way I think they are, this doesn't just mean 15% of cases are missed, it also means a false-positive is given 15% of the time.

It may simply be that 15% of positive cases are missed, with no false-positives. That still means 15% of people with COVID-19 would be going about their day thinking they don't have the virus and aren't a risk to others (likely to be less stringent than had they not been tested at all). That's far from ideal and means allowing spectators is a significant risk.

If it means what I think it does:

If 1000 people take the test, with 100 carrying the virus and 900 not:

• 850 people (85% of 1000) get a correct result, while 150 (15% of 1000) get an incorrect result.
• 85 carriers will test positive
• 15 carriers will test negative - not ideal
• 135 people who don't have COVID-19 will test positive - unnecessary restrictions on their life for 14 days.

This means compromising the accuracy of a test to speed up the results causes a disproportionate amount of people to have to self-isolate. Their household will also have to self-isolate. If any of them are front-line workers, the services they provide are impacted. Some will be unable to work (for some, statutory sick pay will be a significant financial hit compared to normal salary). If any of them are separated parents / kids with separated parents, it impacts on visiting access. Kids will have to miss school. Anyone with carer responsibilities for a relative would need to make alternative arrangements (difficult at short notice). Anyone who lives with someone at high risk would need to seriously consider staying elsewhere for 14 days (unable to stay at a hotel...where do they go?). The anxiety of the situation could cause/exacerbate mental health issues.

You have sensitivity and specificity. If the test is not sensitive enough to test the virus you can get false negativives. If it is not specific enough you can get false negatives.

I asked about the sensitivity because there is a big debate at the moment of who is infectious. I believe the majority are saying that you are infectious from 2-14 days after being infected yourself. Asymptomatic can spread it. But others are arguing that you are only infectious for a shorter period. I was wondering what information you had if there was a new study saying that 85% sensitivity would be too low to catch people that were infectious.

 

[Lilbaz]

It really grates me how the government paints this as an "inevitable second wave" while the increases directly correlate to their reductions in restrictions (even more so when you look at population demographics and how specific decisions impact them).

Weather mate. We always feared it would be the case. Doors windows shut, people spending less time outside, less vitamin d. It's why flu and colds are seasonal and it seems to be the case with this. It' not just the uk seeing a rise, it is most of the northern hempisphere (can't blame the government for rises in germany, france, canada, sweden...).

Personally i think we should have opened up more in the summer. Being outside seems to mean less vìral load, meaning milder cases, no flu so more hospital capacity. Immunity would slow the spread. Would mean a lower mortality rate.

 

[poc]

What about shopkeepers, bus drivers, teachers, bar staff... we don't live in siolation from each other. You are not going to magically appear at the ground then appear back home after the game. The people you live with will interact with others.
If people say they will take the risk then end up in hospital, that bed is not able to be used by someone who didn't take the risk but had another illness. If they can't be treated they may die.
If hospitals start getting overrun the government will lockdown again. It is beginning to look that way anyway.

Look at the daily admissions 7 october. Nice little excel sheet showing how hospitalisations have increased in the last month or so. Not near the peak but increasing from 58 on 1st sep to 470 a day now. Remember these may stay in hospital for weeks.

Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity

Health and high quality care for all, <br />now and for future generations

www.england.nhs.uk

Lol there won’t be any of those jobs left we carry on like this so it wouldn’t matter

 

[whitesocks]

Signed.
20% of londoners have had covid. OK a good fraction of spurs fans don't live in London, so lets say 10% of the spurs membership of 100,000 say, are totally inert (!).
Those 10,000 could go to home games however they chose, sit where they like - on each other laps, eat/drink what they like, sing what they like, maskless, and drunk with no corona risk to themselves or anyone else.
They will not pay all the bills, but it is a start.

The key is getting the corporates back in - 10,000 of them to start would really make a difference. 5/6 of the ground is empty, so sitting them somewhere nice and distanced shouldn't be a problem. Stick a planks of mdf on their laps and they can eat their marinated baby dolphin heads alfresco. The problem is getting the buggers to and from the stadium safely.

Given they have money (and therefore more options), and have a pretty fancy place to wait if we have to stagger their arrivals and departures, I think this should be very manageable.

What people have to recognise is this might not be all over by the end of the season - there could easily be another wave next winter just as big as the previous ones. The clubs have to manage the risks sensibly and adapt.
The government are clueless and corrupt so pay them off so they allow clubs like tottenham think up new strategies to survive.

 

[vegassd]

Kids don’t need protecting only old or vulnerable already sick people need to be. I personally am trying to keep as much normality in my life within the rules as I can. Interesting to see if mass unemployment which undoubtedly is coming will change the minds of the very cautious. Not sure what the answer is but I cannot hide away because of C19.

Can you understand the contradiction in your statement? Yes, it's generally just the vulnerable who need protecting, but that protection is done by all of us limiting our contact to mitigate the spread of the virus. It's not about hiding away at home and letting things go to shit... it's about making life as manageable as possible and deciding which risks are worth taking.

The thing about unemployment is that you can recover from it. You can recover from lower income. You can recover from loneliness. You can recover from home schooling, or seeing your kids less, or being scared shitless. They all suck but they can be recovered from. You can't recover from death, so let's do our best to try and limit the number of people who die.

 

[poc]

Can you understand the contradiction in your statement? Yes, it's generally just the vulnerable who need protecting, but that protection is done by all of us limiting our contact to mitigate the spread of the virus. It's not about hiding away at home and letting things go to shit... it's about making life as manageable as possible and deciding which risks are worth taking.

The thing about unemployment is that you can recover from it. You can recover from lower income. You can recover from loneliness. You can recover from home schooling, or seeing your kids less, or being scared shitless. They all suck but they can be recovered from. You can't recover from death, so let's do our best to try and limit the number of people who die.

Let’s see then you seem to think unemployment and poverty is something trivial I can tell you it isn’t. Anyway neither you or I will decide it you have one approach it seems and I have another.

 

[floydiohead]

The idea was that it's probably out of reach of the PL for now because the guaranteed money from Sky/BT is so huge, but even from the Championship level downwards that proportion of TV income starts to drop.

Id love to see a poll on how much people would be willing to pay if spurs offered a TV season ticket for every single game in all competitions (I know in theory we'd need all clubs to agree, but I'm just interested to see what people think it would be worth). Maybe I'll start one!

 

[vegassd]

Let’s see then you seem to think unemployment and poverty is something trivial I can tell you it isn’t. Anyway neither you or I will decide it you have one approach it seems and I have another.

I'm not saying it's trivial one bit - I didn't use those words. I don't "seem to think" those things at all and I don't need you to tell me how bad it is and how it can stress a family to breaking point - I've been there. I also don't think the mental health impacts or other social issues are to be sniffed at in any way. But they can be recovered from - and I've been there too.

We have to accept a certain level of death from this virus, but now that people understand it more we can certainly choose to not do things that would see an increased level of death.

In a bizarre hypothetical world, when given the choice of suffering three years of unemployment in order for a parent to not die I think most people would take the unemployment. Likewise, if the cost of allowing fans into football games was 500 deaths I doubt many people would take that choice.

I'll say again that I don't take unemployment light heartedly or the other side effects of restricted living. The whole damn thing is crap. But there are things that are worse than unemployment and there sure as hell are things worse than not watching football live.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

Weather mate. We always feared it would be the case. Doors windows shut, people spending less time outside, less vitamin d. It's why flu and colds are seasonal and it seems to be the case with this. It' not just the uk seeing a rise, it is most of the northern hempisphere (can't blame the government for rises in germany, france, canada, sweden...).

Personally i think we should have opened up more in the summer. Being outside seems to mean less vìral load, meaning milder cases, no flu so more hospital capacity. Immunity would slow the spread. Would mean a lower mortality rate.

There are so many issues with what you're saying that I can't not reply - not disagreeing with you and allowing others to be convinced by your post would feel extremely irresponsible. I really hope you read this post properly, take a step back from your opinions, and then think it all through logically. Even if you don't (on forums it's natural to get defensive and become less receptive to people who disagree with us), hopefully at least a few others on SC will.

To anyone who share's Lilbaz's views - please do yourself (and everyone) a favour and take your head out of the sand.

I know there was an expectation for there to be a seasonal rise in cases. This is logical and will almost certainly be the case. However, that doesn't explain a second-wave starting in mid-July.
The start of the second wave coincided with hot weather, not people shutting windows or spending less time outside or having lower levels of vitamin D. It also happened to coincide perfectly with restrictions being eased.
We had a hotter than average summer and are now into a warmer than average autumn. Even in mid-September, I was opening my windows to cool my house down on sunny days.
Flu and cold season hasn't started yet, but you're using these as an example for why the current weather is causing an increase in another similar virus. GP surgeries and pharmacies only start giving out the annual flu vaccine in mid-September. That vaccine takes 14 days to take effect and many of those at high risk will be waiting until sometime in October - yet will still be ready for flu season.
Winter is going to cause a surge, but that's going to be additional to the factors that caused the second wave to start. There is nothing to support a case for the current wave being caused by the weather.

Looking at other countries only further refutes your suggestion that weather is the cause. Other countries also eased their restrictions and then experienced an increase in cases. A number of countries eased their restrictions earlier than us (due to their first-wave starting/finishing earlier) - in June (also hot weather) and immediately experienced an increase in cases.
Countries that had a later first-wave than us actually experienced their highest rates of increase in late spring / summer, even though the weather was getting warmer and should have been helping to limit the spread.
Mainland Europe is warmer than the UK, yet some of those countries experienced a surge in COVID-19 before us. Surely if it was weather dependent we would have been hit before those countries, not after.

If we had kept everything open, rather than now being in the midst of a second-wave, we would still be on our way to a preposterously high peak of the first-wave. Our healthcare infrastructure would have passed capacity months ago. By the time winter (or flu season) hits, the situation would be so far beyond dire that the level of suffering, death and despair is unimaginable.

Let's pretend for a moment that the second wave had just started during this colder, wetter spell of weather (even though that's very clearly not the case):
Commercial buildings tend to rely on AC for fresh air, not open windows, irrespective of the season / temperature. They are also kept at relatively constant temperatures 365 days per year.
If someone is home with their windows closed, this doesn't increase their risk of infection unless someone with the virus enters their home (this would have been illegal during lockdown, so couldn't have happened). If someone with the virus is in their house for any period of time, the risk of transmission is extremely high whether windows are open or not.
Our vitamin D levels don't suddenly plummet after a few days of cloudy skies.

We are so far away from herd immunity that it's not worth even talking about immunity reducing the spread, until a vaccine is readily available. Only 0.84% of the UK population has tested positive for COVID-19 (and some of that 0.84% are now dead, so are obviously not contributing to herd immunity).
The required level of immunity within a population to achieve herd immunity varies for every virus, but can be up to 90% for particularly contagious viruses (which COVID-19 is!).
If we were to optimistically assume that only 50% immunity is necessary (even Trump is clever enough to not be anywhere near that optimistic), that means 32,763,000 more UK citizens need to catch the virus before we can return to normal. It would take a lot of time, suffering and death to achieve. The lowest current estimates for the mortality rate are 3%. That means 982,890 UK citizens who are not currently infected need to die to achieve herd immunity - plus 3% of those who currently have COVID-19 and the 42,000 who already have died.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is a viable option for the government to accept the deaths of over 1,000,000 of its citizens, even though the experts are advising strongly against it? That wouldn't just be political suicide - whoever made that call would surely be prosecuted once all of this is over. Even Dominic Cummings couldn't put enough spin on that act of gross negligence.
Obviously the NHS would be so overwhelmed that a huge proportion of preventable COVID deaths would also be incurred...they can only treat so many patients at a time...plus many preventable non-COVID deaths would be incurred due to a lack of capacity. Then we get back to the fact that 50% is unlikely anywhere close to be adequate for herd immunity against such a contagious virus. In reality, we're looking at in excess of 1,500,000 deaths before herd immunity is achieved, plus hundreds of thousands of additional preventable deaths due to the NHS being overwhelmed.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

This Corona business is pissing me right off. (the actual thing not you lot haha) Every time it's mentioned it draws the same people to it like a shitfly to a flame, they come across as authorities on Covid and bang on and on and on so much about it that others could easily take what's being said as correct. It's dangerous.

Now we're getting it in this thread.

Can we not just talk about the mechanics, logistics, benefits or lack of having fans back in stadiums in this one. There's at least two other threads for the other stuff.

 

[Lighty64]

The same could be said for shopping centres, clothes shops, pubs, restaurants, basically any indoor place that doesn't provide food or water to survive.

I personally think its ridiculous that you can have a shed load of people inside a pub to watch football, or shouting and getting smashed yet you cant have fans at an outdoor stadium with no alcohol and staying at a safe distance. Its illogical.

how many pubs do you know that have 1000's of people in them?

supermarkets, theatres, cinemas, and other allowed places do not have 6,000 people in them at any one time or have that amount of people traveling to 1 of their buildings.

A lot of football stadiums are no longer just that. Take our new ground, which has multiple franchise businesses inside for catering etc. They will potentially go out of business & as we have seen already, Premier League clubs are making cut backs in their staff. People are losing their jobs in every sector of work at the minute and the only thing I want to see is a common sense approach.

Theatres allowing people in, yet football stadiums not is just a bit illogical in my opinion. Ultimately we cant close every industry but there just needs to be a level of understanding of why some things can happen, yet others cant.

even if they start allowing crowds back at the moment until it's at least at 50% capacity I don't expect the bars and restaurants (other than corporate) will be open.

at the moment one small area doesn't need an extra 30k people being around, especially when some people don't even know they have the symptoms.

 

[spursfan77]

Ridiculous

 

[Lilbaz]

Ridiculous

If real that is real it is a pisstake.

 

[Beni]

This Corona business is pissing me right off. (the actual thing not you lot haha) Every time it's mentioned it draws the same people to it like a shitfly to a flame, they come across as authorities on Covid and bang on and on and on so much about it that others could easily take what's being said as correct. It's dangerous.

Now we're getting it in this thread.

Can we not just talk about the mechanics, logistics, benefits or lack of having fans back in stadiums in this one. There's at least two other threads for the other stuff.

Whilst I won’t respond on whether I think fans should be let back in or not. Logistically it depends on the guidelines set, i.e Capacity levels, number of seats distance Etc which would be impossible to make this work keeping our season ticket holders seat that they’ve been allocated.

For example, if we have to keep a 5 seat distance between fans, would reduce the capacity to 12,460, 3 seat distance 20,767 etc we would calculate % of season tickets versus total home capacity seats in order to equate what number tickets to be allocated per game.

20,767 - 1000 (Away Fans) = 19,767
40,000 (Season Ticket holders Approx.) % of 59,303 (Total Home Capacity) = 67.45%.
67.45% of 19,767 = 13,332

So every home game, a ballot is done to allocate 13,332 seats to season ticket holders, game by game excluding previous ballot winners until all season ticket holders numbers have been allocated. The remaining 6,435 match day seats, a % are released a day before general sale for One Hotspur+ members, with remainder on sale day later for general. These seats will be shown as singular seats within the social distance guideline.

Not included Corporate numbers etc , but you can work that with same principle. For me, this is the only fair way to get the correct percentage proportion between season ticket holders and remaining available seats for match day sale.

 

[Beni]

Or Reduced Capacity by 50%
20,000 seats allocated to season ticket holders by ballot
Remaining 9,651 to be available for member/General sale

 

[Wsussexspur]

Or Reduced Capacity by 50%
20,000 seats allocated to season ticket holders by ballot
Remaining 9,651 to be available for member/General sale

You forgetting the corporate and premium seats!

When fans are allowed back in the ground rightly or wrongly I would imagine the premium/corporates will be the first ones given the chance to get tickets.

I cant see any seats being released to member and certainly not to generally sale until the ground is pretty much open at full capacity again

 

[Beni]

You forgetting the corporate and premium seats!

When fans are allowed back in the ground rightly or wrongly I would imagine the premium/corporates will be the first ones given the chance to get tickets.

I cant see any seats being released to member and certainly not to generally sale until the ground is pretty much open at full capacity again

I’d work it with the same ratio as to season tickets and rest. i.e work out the %of corporate seats of our capacity and apply the reduced capacity percentage to fairly allocate seats along these lines.

 

[carmeldevil]

This was last night in London for Wenger's book tour (not sure?) but whoa. Packed ? How come this is fine and not for stadiums with a sensible plan?

 

[Coneilly]

There are so many issues with what you're saying that I can't not reply - not disagreeing with you and allowing others to be convinced by your post would feel extremely irresponsible. I really hope you read this post properly, take a step back from your opinions, and then think it all through logically. Even if you don't (on forums it's natural to get defensive and become less receptive to people who disagree with us), hopefully at least a few others on SC will.

To anyone who share's Lilbaz's views - please do yourself (and everyone) a favour and take your head out of the sand.

I know there was an expectation for there to be a seasonal rise in cases. This is logical and will almost certainly be the case. However, that doesn't explain a second-wave starting in mid-July.
The start of the second wave coincided with hot weather, not people shutting windows or spending less time outside or having lower levels of vitamin D. It also happened to coincide perfectly with restrictions being eased.
We had a hotter than average summer and are now into a warmer than average autumn. Even in mid-September, I was opening my windows to cool my house down on sunny days.
Flu and cold season hasn't started yet, but you're using these as an example for why the current weather is causing an increase in another similar virus. GP surgeries and pharmacies only start giving out the annual flu vaccine in mid-September. That vaccine takes 14 days to take effect and many of those at high risk will be waiting until sometime in October - yet will still be ready for flu season.
Winter is going to cause a surge, but that's going to be additional to the factors that caused the second wave to start. There is nothing to support a case for the current wave being caused by the weather.

Looking at other countries only further refutes your suggestion that weather is the cause. Other countries also eased their restrictions and then experienced an increase in cases. A number of countries eased their restrictions earlier than us (due to their first-wave starting/finishing earlier) - in June (also hot weather) and immediately experienced an increase in cases.
Countries that had a later first-wave than us actually experienced their highest rates of increase in late spring / summer, even though the weather was getting warmer and should have been helping to limit the spread.
Mainland Europe is warmer than the UK, yet some of those countries experienced a surge in COVID-19 before us. Surely if it was weather dependent we would have been hit before those countries, not after.

If we had kept everything open, rather than now being in the midst of a second-wave, we would still be on our way to a preposterously high peak of the first-wave. Our healthcare infrastructure would have passed capacity months ago. By the time winter (or flu season) hits, the situation would be so far beyond dire that the level of suffering, death and despair is unimaginable.

Let's pretend for a moment that the second wave had just started during this colder, wetter spell of weather (even though that's very clearly not the case):
Commercial buildings tend to rely on AC for fresh air, not open windows, irrespective of the season / temperature. They are also kept at relatively constant temperatures 365 days per year.
If someone is home with their windows closed, this doesn't increase their risk of infection unless someone with the virus enters their home (this would have been illegal during lockdown, so couldn't have happened). If someone with the virus is in their house for any period of time, the risk of transmission is extremely high whether windows are open or not.
Our vitamin D levels don't suddenly plummet after a few days of cloudy skies.

We are so far away from herd immunity that it's not worth even talking about immunity reducing the spread, until a vaccine is readily available. Only 0.84% of the UK population has tested positive for COVID-19 (and some of that 0.84% are now dead, so are obviously not contributing to herd immunity).
The required level of immunity within a population to achieve herd immunity varies for every virus, but can be up to 90% for particularly contagious viruses (which COVID-19 is!).
If we were to optimistically assume that only 50% immunity is necessary (even Trump is clever enough to not be anywhere near that optimistic), that means 32,763,000 more UK citizens need to catch the virus before we can return to normal. It would take a lot of time, suffering and death to achieve. The lowest current estimates for the mortality rate are 3%. That means 982,890 UK citizens who are not currently infected need to die to achieve herd immunity - plus 3% of those who currently have COVID-19 and the 42,000 who already have died.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is a viable option for the government to accept the deaths of over 1,000,000 of its citizens, even though the experts are advising strongly against it? That wouldn't just be political suicide - whoever made that call would surely be prosecuted once all of this is over. Even Dominic Cummings couldn't put enough spin on that act of gross negligence.
Obviously the NHS would be so overwhelmed that a huge proportion of preventable COVID deaths would also be incurred...they can only treat so many patients at a time...plus many preventable non-COVID deaths would be incurred due to a lack of capacity. Then we get back to the fact that 50% is unlikely anywhere close to be adequate for herd immunity against such a contagious virus. In reality, we're looking at in excess of 1,500,000 deaths before herd immunity is achieved, plus hundreds of thousands of additional preventable deaths due to the NHS being overwhelmed.

Not sure where you're getting that from mate.