Ian

What I do find absolutely remarkable is that despite the EPL being one of the richest leagues in the world, one of the most popular in the world, and one full of international players that there seemed to be absolutely no thought or legislation for what happens in the event a season cannot be completed due to external forces. Surely, if there was something in place within the rules indicating that a season will be voided if it becomes impossible to complete for specified reasons (war/pandemic etc.), there would be no possibility of legal action and/or a plan to recompense or reach an agreement with the broadcasters accordingly. I was certain that this would have been thought of by the EPL, but people much cleverer than me suggest there is nothing in the rules anywhere with regards to the current circumstances, which I find absolutely incredible.

Glance a bit closer.

Perhaps he purchased a private test like the glitterati have?

So you accept that probably somewhere along the line, rather a lot of expert virologists have probably been involved with defining the Government strategy? As per "not following the policy", my belief is that it was fairly clear in the original press conference 2 weeks ago (or whenever it was) that the plan was always to contain, then delay. This was obviously Government strategy, and it was also mentioned that all measures (including quarantine) would be considered when appropriate but the situation was fluid. Yes, the Imperial London modelling may have been wrong initially, and anyone is free to criticise whether these transitions were timed correctly, but ultimately I just don't think it's true that "herd immunity" was the strategy that was put in place. My main criticism is the treatment of front-line NHS staff and the lack of testing in general, but there could be logistical issues as to why this would be; I don't think it's for lack of trying. I am also concerned that there did not seem to be a plan in place for dealing with a pandemic, when it's pretty obvious humankind is susceptible to them - and why it took so long to start ramping up when we have known about the issues in China for some months. That said, I think the Chinese government have a lot to answer for given that they tried to suppress everything as much as possible, including leading to that terrible misleading WHO advice about no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

Yes, but we generally over-rely on simplified modelling of chaotic systems, which can often lead to the wrong answer. My point is that Johnson was following the UK's expert advice. Do you really think the problem will be solved by people staying at home for a few weeks? Or are you suggesting that people should basically stay at home for however long it takes a vaccine to be developed? What impact do you think that is going to have on people economically, and therefore their own ability to provide themselves and their families the bare essentials? Do you really think people like Vallance, Whitty, and Imperial College London really don't have any common sense and weren't aware of these simple facts? It will be interesting to keep an eye on what happens to other countries who are ahead of the curve and have strictly quarantined when people start to return to normality.

I agree with that. Expertise may not be as useful in unprecedented times, but it was the best advice available.

So you're saying he shouldn't have listened to the hugely well-respected experts with relevant experience, but in fact should have overridden them with his own opinion because of "common sense"? Didn't think you would be advocating that sort of dictatorial behaviour from Johnson. This is not a simple situation. Despite the fact you are clearly trying to make it so, presumably for the purpose of political point scoring, any cursory research makes it clear this is not a straightforward problem that can be easily solved, and will have far reaching repercussions for many, many months and years to come. Whilst we will doubtless look back and see where improvements should and could have been made in the Government's strategy, please let's not try and make this into a foaming at the mouth party political situation.

So you're saying Boris didn't base his policy on COBRA advice/Chris Whitty etc., but effectively overrode it with his own opinion?

Realistically they are not going to void the season until it is physically impossible to finish it. My thinking is that there may be some other timescales put on things today, but realistically, if we're not back playing games by the second week of May (and there will obviously be some logistical issues with regards to this as well) I cannot see what realistic alternatives there are. I suspect that as we get closer to the end of April there will be many more who come to the conclusion that there's only one real option.

BBC screenshot attached, can try and find original press conference thread, but this was an accurate summary.

Judging by the modelling coming out from Imperial College, I think we can forget about this season and will be lucky to resume the season before 2021-2022.

You do realise what forum you are on, right?

Of course, this would be the ideal scenario, but is it really feasible to test every suspected case? Can tests be manufactured quickly enough? What would be the labour and financial burden of processing all these tests? What if somebody tests negative, but contracts it shortly after? Surely the money is better spent on critical care than what would effectively be a pointless statistic now the virus cannot be contained?

It's a good point, you would anticipate that this has been planned for, at least in terms of a "disaster" requiring the season to be suspended and/or voided. Particularly given the sums of money that are "invested" into the Premiership. That said, this is the Premier League, and a S*n article stated the following: https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/11061949/premier-league-coronavirus-liverpool-title/ I dare say this season will be setting the precedent.

So disappointed for you both given the news just released.