Still Don't agree you can go to the pub but you can't stand on a terrace in open air

And as I said earlier they are allowing 12 pantomimes this year with the lottery buying the tickets they can't put on sale

You give examples in Ireland of sporting events and spikes but we had similar events over here but no problems

Stan.

I fully understand your rationale and argument. In some respects I share the view also.

However, I'm coming round to the opposite view now, namely that sooner or later we'll need to open up everything and let folk get on with their lives freely, while still reminding those at risk or particularly vulnerable to take precautions. This is based on a stat showing, worldwide I think, 99.81% of the population have not been affected by the virus yet lockdown and restrictions affect 100%. As a consequence, the world economy and around 5-10% of citizens have felt financial or job security pain.

HMG's response has been poor from start to finish. Too little too late, plus exceptionally poor pandemic planning despite warnings this sort of thing would happen. Our children and their children will be counting the cost for years, meanwhile certain business sectors are making a mint from delivering (or not) poor PPE and inadequate track and trace systems, all appointed at haste and arguably without due diligence. But equally, the British people are intolerant with too many stretching what is/isn't allowed.

I support a 14 day full lockdown nationwide, shut everything except to key workers. Everyone to stay at home (Oct school half-term seems an ideal time to do this) bar a walk in the park for exercise or essential GP or hospital visits. Give folk a week's notice to stock up on food, medication etc. Use the army (been stood up for months now) to help police patrol the streets for lockdown breakers.

Then, after 2 maybe 3 weeks, open up everything and hope that a national period of strong mutual isolation has receded the virus spreading. Protect the vulnerable and safeguard the NHS, buy a little time in the hope a vaccination is deemed safe to use. But eventually we'll need to get back to business as usual and rebuild lives, the economy and confidence. Which must mean giving folk the freedom to make sensible choices about watching football, partying and going to pubs with friends because the 0.19% deserve to be protected and the 99.81% must be afforded some kind of freedom. Just my views.

UPTHEPORT wrote:Still Don't agree you can go to the pub but you can't stand on a terrace in open air

And as I said earlier they are allowing 12 pantomimes this year with the lottery buying the tickets they can't put on sale

You give examples in Ireland of sporting events and spikes but we had similar events over here but no problems

Jim,

I agree it is madness that you can go to indoor events such as pantomime but not to a football match. However the madness is not the proscribtion of football but the allowing of pantomime.

As for your second point. Look at that outdoor event on the Whitehouse lawn. Look at the evidence from Ireland. Outdoor events can and do help spread the virus. That on a limited number of occasions in the UK sporting events you may have been lucky is neither here not there. If you pause to think it's the same argument as a drunk driver saying that he has driven home drunk without incident on a number of occasions, therefore it follows drunk driving okay.

Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

DeePeeNCAFC wrote:Stan.

I fully understand your rationale and argument. In some respects I share the view also.

However, I'm coming round to the opposite view now, namely that sooner or later we'll need to open up everything and let folk get on with their lives freely, while still reminding those at risk or particularly vulnerable to take precautions. This is based on a stat showing, worldwide I think, 99.81% of the population have not been affected by the virus yet lockdown and restrictions affect 100%. As a consequence, the world economy and around 5-10% of citizens have felt financial or job security pain.

HMG's response has been poor from start to finish. Too little too late, plus exceptionally poor pandemic planning despite warnings this sort of thing would happen. Our children and their children will be counting the cost for years, meanwhile certain business sectors are making a mint from delivering (or not) poor PPE and inadequate track and trace systems, all appointed at haste and arguably without due diligence. But equally, the British people are intolerant with too many stretching what is/isn't allowed.

I support a 14 day full lockdown nationwide, shut everything except to key workers. Everyone to stay at home (Oct school half-term seems an ideal time to do this) bar a walk in the park for exercise or essential GP or hospital visits. Give folk a week's notice to stock up on food, medication etc. Use the army (been stood up for months now) to help police patrol the streets for lockdown breakers.

Then, after 2 maybe 3 weeks, open up everything and hope that a national period of strong mutual isolation has receded the virus spreading. Protect the vulnerable and safeguard the NHS, buy a little time in the hope a vaccination is deemed safe to use. But eventually we'll need to get back to business as usual and rebuild lives, the economy and confidence. Which must mean giving folk the freedom to make sensible choices about watching football, partying and going to pubs with friends because the 0.19% deserve to be protected and the 99.81% must be afforded some kind of freedom. Just my views.

Without restrictions in the UK 500 000 It is estimated will die. If you imposed a full lockdown and shot anybody who broke the lockdown that would pretty much end the virus. Neither is acceptable. On that we agree.

Now moving on. I don't know how many people will die before their time if the current lax regime in the UK is maintained. All I do know is that in a population of about 4 million Ireland has seen about 1,800 deaths. The UK being 15 times bigger per capita should have seen on that basis 27,000 deaths.

20,000 extra deaths but the freedom to drink in pubs? It is a choice all societies have to make. And it's a question I have posed to Percy, who won't answer, and likewise to everyone else, who I hope will.

How many people are you willing to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

For me the answer is zero.

UPTHEPORT wrote:Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

Thanks Jim but see my post below. It is put in stark terms but I feel it fair. Firstly the prohibitive cost of Your plan makes it a nonstarter. Secondly standards slip in any event. Thirdly you can't reduce the risk completely.

So again I ask. How many people are you prepared to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

Thanks Jim but see my post below. It is put in stark terms but I feel it fair. Firstly the prohibitive cost of Your plan makes it a nonstarter. Secondly standards slip in any event. Thirdly you can't reduce the risk completely.

So again I ask. How many people are you prepared to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

I don't want anyone to die so on that argument do we ban all smoking products because people are clearly not taking the advice

UPTHEPORT wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

Thanks Jim but see my post below. It is put in stark terms but I feel it fair. Firstly the prohibitive cost of Your plan makes it a nonstarter. Secondly standards slip in any event. Thirdly you can't reduce the risk completely.

So again I ask. How many people are you prepared to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

I don't want anyone to die so on that argument do we ban all smoking products because people are clearly not taking the advice

No. You are entitled to put your own life at risk by smoking. You are not entitled to put my life at risk by smoking indoors in a public space.

Likewise you are entitled to put your own life at risk by going to a football game. You are not entitled in my view to put the life of people who you will come into contact with.

So again the question. All human contact increases the risk of spreading the virus. My view remains that as things presently stand we need to drastically curtail non vital contact. Going to football matches will increase the spread of the virus. Going to football matches is not vital.

How many people have to die before you believe that the cost of watching a game is too high?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

Thanks Jim but see my post below. It is put in stark terms but I feel it fair. Firstly the prohibitive cost of Your plan makes it a nonstarter. Secondly standards slip in any event. Thirdly you can't reduce the risk completely.

So again I ask. How many people are you prepared to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

I don't want anyone to die so on that argument do we ban all smoking products because people are clearly not taking the advice

No. You are entitled to put your own life at risk by smoking. You are not entitled to put my life at risk by smoking indoors in a public space.

Likewise you are entitled to put your own life at risk by going to a football game. You are not entitled in my view to put the life of people who you will come into contact with.

So again the question. All human contact increases the risk of spreading the virus. My view remains that as things presently stand we need to drastically curtail non vital contact. Going to football matches will increase the spread of the virus. Going to football matches is not vital.

How many people have to die before you believe that the cost of watching a game is too high?

I would say more people have died from passive smoking than coronavirus over the years

And I'm no statistician but I would hazard a guess more people would die travelling to a sporting fixture over the years than coronavirus plus factor in those that have died of natural causes such as heart attacks just one example so do we ban all sporting events because of those risks

You can't wrap everyone in cotton wool 100% of the time

UPTHEPORT wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Morning Bren

We have stewards at RP let say 1000 spectators in first space those people around the ground and the stewards make sure everyone is staying safe if people want to use the toilet they draw the attention to a steward he she takes them one at a time to the toilet where another steward is on the toilet entrance making sure its one in one out

Even though its outdoors ask people to wear masks because people will shout etc even i agree masks are the way forward for stopping spray when people are shouting

Thanks Jim but see my post below. It is put in stark terms but I feel it fair. Firstly the prohibitive cost of Your plan makes it a nonstarter. Secondly standards slip in any event. Thirdly you can't reduce the risk completely.

So again I ask. How many people are you prepared to see die in order to preserve your right to go to a football match?

I don't want anyone to die so on that argument do we ban all smoking products because people are clearly not taking the advice

No. You are entitled to put your own life at risk by smoking. You are not entitled to put my life at risk by smoking indoors in a public space.

Likewise you are entitled to put your own life at risk by going to a football game. You are not entitled in my view to put the life of people who you will come into contact with.

So again the question. All human contact increases the risk of spreading the virus. My view remains that as things presently stand we need to drastically curtail non vital contact. Going to football matches will increase the spread of the virus. Going to football matches is not vital.

How many people have to die before you believe that the cost of watching a game is too high?

I would say more people have died from passive smoking than coronavirus over the years

And I'm no statistician but I would hazard a guess more people would die travelling to a sporting fixture over the years than coronavirus plus factor in those that have died of natural causes such as heart attacks just one example so do we ban all sporting events because of those risks

You can't wrap everyone in cotton wool 100% of the time

I share your analysis.

My point is this. In the present circumstances the risk to reward ratio is too skewered to the risk. For this reason I believe this season should be aborted. My analogy is with driving. Last year 1,800 people in the UK died in car accidents. I drive. I can justify that whilst accepting that some would disagree. If there were public transport which was reliable and affordable my argument would be weakened. I can't justify and don't driving at excess speed, driving having drink taken, driving when tired.

Jim, my view is that until there is a vaccine all of us have a duty to protect each other. Believe me as soon as I can I shall arrange safe transport and enjoy a football match while imbibing on at least five pints of Guinness. But not yet.

Bren how long do we wait for a vaccine which according to some could be years if ever the country can't afford to wait that long and that's if we get one

I'm going more towards isolate the vulnerable and let people get on with their lives but promote good advice such as washing hands more often

UPTHEPORT wrote:Bren how long do we wait for a vaccine which according to some could be years if ever the country can't afford to wait that long and that's if we get one

I'm going more towards isolate the vulnerable and let people get on with their lives but promote good advice such as washing hands more often

Firstly I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

As for the first I will answer as best I can. Can these restrictions go on forever? No. Should they go on throughout this winter? Yes. Will there be an opportunity in the spring to reassess when the seasonal nature of virus spread will allow for respite in any event? Yes. Do I know what I will think in April? No. Will I be better informed in April? Yes. Do I think that regrettable as it is we should abandon season 20/21? Yes.

So that's my reasoning. To answer your question, unless a vaccine is found beforehand we should wait until at least 1st May 2021.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

UPTHEPORT wrote:Bren how long do we wait for a vaccine which according to some could be years if ever the country can't afford to wait that long and that's if we get one

I'm going more towards isolate the vulnerable and let people get on with their lives but promote good advice such as washing hands more often

Firstly I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

As for the first I will answer as best I can. Can these restrictions go on forever? No. Should they go on throughout this winter? Yes. Will there be an opportunity in the spring to reassess when the seasonal nature of virus spread will allow for respite in any event? Yes. Do I know what I will think in April? No. Will I be better informed in April? Yes. Do I think that regrettable as it is we should abandon season 20/21? Yes.

So that's my reasoning. To answer your question, unless a vaccine is found beforehand we should wait until at least 1st May 2021.

How many businesses will go by the wall in that time how many will lose jobs waiting that long we now apparently have close on 4 million out of work

We got to think differently its clearly not working at the moment

Fresh point.

We are at war.

The Americans fought an incremental war in Vietnam. They lost. The Russians fought an incremental war in Afghanistan. They lost. The Americans and British fought an incremental war in Afghanistan, they lost. Finally learning that wars require smashing your enemy with everything you have is the only way to win a total war.

South Korea and New Zealand fought this war from the outset with one aim, that being total victory regardless of the sacrifice to personal freedom that might entail.

I'm big on personal freedom. The current restrictions and the far harsher restrictions I would deploy would be in normal circumstances totally unacceptable. They would cause real hardship and distress. I get that. Nonetheless in the present circumstances I think it is the least worse option.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Fresh point.

We are at war.

The Americans fought an incremental war in Vietnam. They lost. The Russians fought an incremental war in Afghanistan. They lost. The Americans and British fought an incremental war in Afghanistan, they lost. Finally learning that wars require smashing your enemy with everything you have is the only way to win a total war.

South Korea and New Zealand fought this war from the outset with one aim, that being total victory regardless of the sacrifice to personal freedom that might entail.

I'm big on personal freedom. The current restrictions and the far harsher restrictions I would deploy would be in normal circumstances totally unacceptable. They would cause real hardship and distress. I get that. Nonetheless in the present circumstances I think it is the least worse option.

You kept on about how many lives so how many jobs are you prepared to lose Bren
How many businesses go to the wall