mrb85
Player Valuation: £35m
That could be argued in both directions on this particular issue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
- Status
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
Not sure I follow you.
Eggsyblueskin
Player Valuation: £40m
Freedom of choice is a right that has moral constraints . If by exercising your freedom of choice you endanger other people’s health and well being that is morally wrong as well as being incredibly selfish.
typo fixed for you
Every measure we bring in has positives and negatives. There's so many trade offs in dealing with this virus. Thats why its such a horrible and difficult thing to have to deal with.
Closing industries will help stop the virus but its inevitable it will lead to increased job losses and hardship. Stopping people from doing some of the things they enjoy for such a long period of time is bound to have a long term effect on their wellbeing.
The reality is every time we leave the house we potentially expose ourselves to covid and this will remain the case at least for the next number of months. We have to learn to live with it and try to regain normality. I believe in allowing people the right to choose to do the things they enjoy and are comfortable doing, but learning to do them differently.
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
It seems by the highlighted text you may have missed the point. This is a disease many can carry about without having any symptoms and without knowing they have it. Those lucky people, a majority it seems, are capable of spreading it to others who may be absolutely vulnerable and who could be killed if they contract the illness. This is a disease where a human doesn't show his or her worth by protecting themselves but by protecting others. Its why we have to be selfless and go without our wants and desires fir a few months, maybe a year, so that the vulnerable can complete their lives. Think of it as about trading a year of your own quality of life for decades of another's actual life.
evertonandchelmsford
Player Valuation: £1m
In terms of the numbers. 30,500 season tickets renewed the 1500 tickets that didn’t get renewed were suspended from being offered to waiting list which was a sensible decision for the time being.
it’s going to be really difficult to find a solution to this If there is one. One day the premier league say reduced capacity of 40 percent the next Day its everyone allowed in with health passports.
if it was to be 40% of the full capacity no away fans how many seats gap spaces would there need to be between each STH or group/family/bubble STHS. How could games be fairly given out? They can’t. How many of the current STH with underlying health conditions would voluntarily not turn up without a vaccine? So many questions they’ll be needing to find the answers to.
I think we’ll be lucky to get to Many if any games this season.
it’s going to be really difficult to find a solution to this If there is one. One day the premier league say reduced capacity of 40 percent the next Day its everyone allowed in with health passports.
if it was to be 40% of the full capacity no away fans how many seats gap spaces would there need to be between each STH or group/family/bubble STHS. How could games be fairly given out? They can’t. How many of the current STH with underlying health conditions would voluntarily not turn up without a vaccine? So many questions they’ll be needing to find the answers to.
I think we’ll be lucky to get to Many if any games this season.
Don't really see how I've missed the point tbh. Every time we leave the house we may expose ourselves or others to the virus. We don't live in a risk free society.
There are so many trade offs at play when making decisions on how we handle the virus. I don't see how that can be denied? I know people who have already been informed they will be losing their job, largely due to the fact their employer was forced to shut down.
I'm not saying it was wrong at the time for the government to impose lockdown, because I think it was right. But that was March and we are now in August. Lockdown restrictions are a short-term measure and if imposed long - term, the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion. A vaccine could be over a year away, maybe even several years. If we continue with lots of restrictions until then, the economic hardship we will witness will be on a scary scale.
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
It seems to me though like you're trying to negotiate in a very human business like way - by saying "it's gone on long enough, our lockdown was only a temporary solution, we'd like to get on with life now because "x" has been a reasonably long enough time - you've had your fun now we should just ignore you."
Trouble is you would be trying to negotiate with an unthinking microscopic particle that doesn't have a plan or a motive other than replicating itself. It's not a business colleague or an ambassador. It's a fatal disease, and there is currently no other solution other than keeping a distance. We're lucky that we have THAT!
Past pandemics show that there is always a second wave and the second wave is ALWAYS worse - probably because people become impatient or bored or just want to get back to life as normal (don't we all?). In time either enough will have caught and had the disease that herd immunity will come into affect and protect the rest; or some scientists will develop and effective vaccine (if we're lucky). Simply thinking "this has gone on long enough" isn't a solution though.
Businesses closing, people losing their jobs, poverty - these are all awful consequences, no argument there. I'd argue though that they are all secondary to actual loss of life. To me it seems a straightforward choice of which is the least bad solution - if we stay in lock down (or partial lockdown) we have poverty, if we don't we have poverty and loss of life.
If the idiot liar chief in charge had made better and faster decisions back in late January early February and shut the ports and airports, we at least could have had a better chance of carrying on a normal life on this island - but no - his first priority like any Tory was not others lives but wealth.
phil_t98
Player Valuation: £6m
I wonder how they gonna work crowds back in? They let a few in maybe 30% but what about everybody else and how would they pick what games you could attend. The end of last season didn’t work for any team other than Liverpool so no crowds is not the way to go. Lets have a few thousand in at least spread out
It's not a wealth v health debate. The two are intrinsically linked.
We need to find the right balance. Everyone staying indoors and restrictions being in place for the long term will cause enormous issues for the whole fabric of society. Lockdown was the right policy back in the spring without doubt, but it is not a long - term solution. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
chrismpw
Player Valuation: £70m
Fair enough ... they were short term measures but as it stands there isn't an alternative solution. Are you suggesting therefore that we should pretend its not about and hope for the best?
By the way its nice to be able to demonstrate to others how two people can disagree without recourse to insults.
Fair enough ... they were short term measures but as it stands there isn't an alternative solution. Are you suggesting therefore that we should pretend its not about and hope for the best?
By the way its nice to be able to demonstrate to others how two people can disagree without recourse to insults.
There is no ideal or risk free solution. Every single solution is far from good. But I think the least bad solution is to keep removing restrictions and leave it up to personal responsibility. There should be no pressure on anyone to do things they are not comfortable with, but equally should be no stigma for those who want to be out and about doing the things they enjoy. Some people will fail in their duty to be responsible of course, but I don't think that's a good reason to stop those who can be sensible.
Going forward I think we need to learn to do things differently, rather than continue to prohibit things. I think we can get some supporters into stadiums and still be keeping distance from those around us. For me the answer is neither full, nor empty stadiums. It's somewhere in between. I don't think it's selfish to want to go to an outdoor event like a football match.
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
"My right to swing my fist through the air ends where your face begins"
JordanianEmbassy
Player Valuation: £5m
One thing worth being aware of is that alot the damage the lockdown is doing isn't really getting any publicity.
For example, I spoke to a nurse in who works in a psychiatric ward the other day, and since the lockdown they have had 3 or 4 times the normal amount of admissions. Half of these people haven't even got a history of mental health problems.
I also know people who work in social services, and the murder rate as the result of domestic violence has increased by more than 4 times.
Foster parents who have recently taken on board children with a history of problematic behaviour are also under incredible pressure, as they are suddenly stuck indoors with them with most of the support systems taken away.
That is just a few examples, but most of the people I know who work in these areas are of the opinion that the lockdown is doing more damage than it is preventing, and we should have lifted the lockdown as much as possible as soon as the nightingale hospitals were built.
Now... whether having crowds at football matches should be at the top of the list of things to allow again, I don't know. But the reason I wrote this post is that alot of people seem to think that extending the lockdown for as long as possible is the compassionate approach, but it most definitely is not that simple. Why is one persons physical health more important than another persons mental health? Why is one problem more important than another? Difficult questions to answer, and all hard to quantify.
For example, I spoke to a nurse in who works in a psychiatric ward the other day, and since the lockdown they have had 3 or 4 times the normal amount of admissions. Half of these people haven't even got a history of mental health problems.
I also know people who work in social services, and the murder rate as the result of domestic violence has increased by more than 4 times.
Foster parents who have recently taken on board children with a history of problematic behaviour are also under incredible pressure, as they are suddenly stuck indoors with them with most of the support systems taken away.
That is just a few examples, but most of the people I know who work in these areas are of the opinion that the lockdown is doing more damage than it is preventing, and we should have lifted the lockdown as much as possible as soon as the nightingale hospitals were built.
Now... whether having crowds at football matches should be at the top of the list of things to allow again, I don't know. But the reason I wrote this post is that alot of people seem to think that extending the lockdown for as long as possible is the compassionate approach, but it most definitely is not that simple. Why is one persons physical health more important than another persons mental health? Why is one problem more important than another? Difficult questions to answer, and all hard to quantify.
- Status