Germany’s return is going well....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

26 minutes ago, T said:

That is why they are also being tested regularly and quarantined   Test trace and Isolate is absolutely they way you eliminate the disease.without a vaccine.  S Korea has done it successfully for a whole country so not a great challenge for a relatively small controlled group. Only 10 out of 1700 tested positive in the first round in Germany lass than 1pc so there is not a lot to eliminate. Always a risk but the risk is minimal. The risk for the general population under 65 without pre conditions is the same as a 185 miles drive. so the risk will be even less for a fit and healthy group in a highly controlled environment. Not exactly a lot of old unfit obese professional footballers are there. 

Except for this potential aspect for players getting the virus. That they are professional footballers may increase the risk of greater damage to to the lungs than for others:

Research from Germany and Italy suggests that footballers and other athletes face a particular risk of the coronavirus infecting their lungs, raising major questions over attempts to restart professional soccer.

The research, produced by Italian immunologists and lung specialists based at institutes in Berlin, Rome and Verona, suggests that due to strenuous exercise, elite athletes are more likely to inhale virus particles and direct them to the lower areas of the lung.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, can cause lung damage and complications such as pneumonia and, in severe cases, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

The preprint paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, also suggests that athletes who are asymptomatic could make their condition worse by infecting their lungs during strenuous exertion.

Soccer has ground to a halt in all major leagues in Europe and none have yet to resume. European soccer's governing body UEFA has set a May 25 deadline for leagues to outline their plans to re-start.

Leagues, governing bodies and clubs, however, have said they will only return when play is safe and that they will take medical advice.

In their paper: "The First, Comprehensive Immunological Model of COVID-19", Paolo Matricardi, Roberto Dal Negro and Roberto Nisini raise questions over the safety of playing while the virus remains at large.

"The pattern of breathing during strenuous exercise changes dramatically by a tremendous increase of ventilation [i.e.: inspiratory and expiratory volumes of air], and of alveolar ventilation in particular," the authors state.

"Professional athletes [are] particularly exposed [much more than individuals of common population] due to their frequent practice of extreme and long-lasting exercise."

The researchers state that the "ideal lungs" of athletes, while helpful in normal conditions, significantly favor the deep inhalation of infectious agents.

"Even the SARS-CoV-2 can then spread more easily to the deepest areas of the lungs during strenuous exercise, and there start its aggressive action," they said.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the name given to the 2019 novel coronavirus. COVID-19 is the name given to the disease associated with the virus.

"Not by chance, a great proportion of professional football players claimed the occurrence of fever, dry cough and malaise (and dyspnea in some cases) immediately after, or a few hours following their last official match," note the authors.

Adding to the dangers, the research says that players who have the virus but do not show symptoms, could make their condition worse by allowing the virus to move from their upper to lower airways.

Asymptomatic but infected athletes could exhale or eliminate aerosolized particles that may contain viruses which are then re-inhaled.

"These droplets or aerosol might be re-inhaled and facilitate the spread of the virus from the upper to the lower airways," the paper states.

The authors also look at the risk of the virus being transmitted during a game.

"In sports where many athletes are in close contact, such as team sports or marathons, the same particles have high chances to be inhaled by other athletes, facilitating viral transmission.

"To emphasize that strenuous exercise induces a much more frequent spitting of secretions and this can further contribute to the environmental SARS-CoV-2 spreading, particularly if the distancing recommendations are not strictly followed."

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

33 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Except for this potential aspect for players getting the virus. That they are professional footballers may increase the risk of greater damage to to the lungs than for others:

Research from Germany and Italy suggests that footballers and other athletes face a particular risk of the coronavirus infecting their lungs, raising major questions over attempts to restart professional soccer.

The research, produced by Italian immunologists and lung specialists based at institutes in Berlin, Rome and Verona, suggests that due to strenuous exercise, elite athletes are more likely to inhale virus particles and direct them to the lower areas of the lung.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, can cause lung damage and complications such as pneumonia and, in severe cases, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

The preprint paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, also suggests that athletes who are asymptomatic could make their condition worse by infecting their lungs during strenuous exertion.

Soccer has ground to a halt in all major leagues in Europe and none have yet to resume. European soccer's governing body UEFA has set a May 25 deadline for leagues to outline their plans to re-start.

Leagues, governing bodies and clubs, however, have said they will only return when play is safe and that they will take medical advice.

In their paper: "The First, Comprehensive Immunological Model of COVID-19", Paolo Matricardi, Roberto Dal Negro and Roberto Nisini raise questions over the safety of playing while the virus remains at large.

"The pattern of breathing during strenuous exercise changes dramatically by a tremendous increase of ventilation [i.e.: inspiratory and expiratory volumes of air], and of alveolar ventilation in particular," the authors state.

"Professional athletes [are] particularly exposed [much more than individuals of common population] due to their frequent practice of extreme and long-lasting exercise."

The researchers state that the "ideal lungs" of athletes, while helpful in normal conditions, significantly favor the deep inhalation of infectious agents.

"Even the SARS-CoV-2 can then spread more easily to the deepest areas of the lungs during strenuous exercise, and there start its aggressive action," they said.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the name given to the 2019 novel coronavirus. COVID-19 is the name given to the disease associated with the virus.

"Not by chance, a great proportion of professional football players claimed the occurrence of fever, dry cough and malaise (and dyspnea in some cases) immediately after, or a few hours following their last official match," note the authors.

Adding to the dangers, the research says that players who have the virus but do not show symptoms, could make their condition worse by allowing the virus to move from their upper to lower airways.

Asymptomatic but infected athletes could exhale or eliminate aerosolized particles that may contain viruses which are then re-inhaled.

"These droplets or aerosol might be re-inhaled and facilitate the spread of the virus from the upper to the lower airways," the paper states.

The authors also look at the risk of the virus being transmitted during a game.

"In sports where many athletes are in close contact, such as team sports or marathons, the same particles have high chances to be inhaled by other athletes, facilitating viral transmission.

"To emphasize that strenuous exercise induces a much more frequent spitting of secretions and this can further contribute to the environmental SARS-CoV-2 spreading, particularly if the distancing recommendations are not strictly followed."

 

Just to add the draft plan in England is this:

The testing plan, still to be approved by clubs, would involve players and staff being tested twice a week during a three-week training period and the expected seven-week match schedule. Tests would be ordered centrally before being distributed to the clubs and the total cost is anticipated to reach £4m.

So a player could be tested clear on, say, Monday morning, and then train hard and play harder on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before being tested again on Thursday. Three full days with the virus (and potentially infecting others) and the probable extra danger precisely because they are a fit athlete.

[T 190]

I’m not sure what people are not getting about test test test and test again and trace isolate and quarantine such that you the risk is very low.

 You would never do anything if you didnt accept some risk. I do a lot more dangerous sports  than that but manage the risk. No one is talking about any mass marathons. They are talking about a highly tested highly controlled group. Not something I’m getting exercising intensely in the park but I still do it bacause the risk is very low. Still a lot more risk from people drinking smoking and being fat than for healthy individuals in a controlled environment yet majority of UK merrily ignore  expert advice and abuse their bodies. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by T

[Bill 1,788]

On 04/05/2020 at 17:00, TIL 1010 said:

The farce of restarting the season in all it's glory.

or in reality the farce of the not too bright in thinking that footballers are poor, put upon wretches forced into playing by greedy and ruthless football authorities

perhaps in your naivety you imagine this kind of ar seing about is not going on in the wider world

and it ill behoves you to be bleating when those in the police are being put into similar positions every day dealing with such behaviour

[Jim Smith 2,314]

not Germany but having just returned to training 4 Sampdoria players have tested positive as have 3 Fiorentina players. 3 other Fiorentina staff as well. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

And Torino as well Jim. Three clubs out of 20. 15%. Doesn't sound good.

[Bill 1,788]

So given how close these players will have been to their family and others why have there been no deaths there ?

and isn't the talk about those who have recovered being encouraged back to work

or doesn't that apply to footballers ?

[Bill 1,788]

FAO   'T'

taken from elsewhere

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/germany-covid-19-masterclass-testing-tracing-uk

"there are questions enough there for Boris to try and answer, such as;-

Germany taking the whole thing very seriously from the very first case, and we not doing anything like this.... so was this a case of following the science or of science following the politics??

Why when Germany had developed a working coronavirus test, that was available to us, did we insist on developing our own test and losing 3 weeks in the process?

Why did Jenny Harries on 26th March say that ;-

testing and tracing in the general population was not an “appropriate intervention” at the time, and suggested that the WHO’s advice was only for “low- and middle-income countries.”

and why were;-

medical researchers in charge of labs with the expertise, equipment, and health and safety clearance to provide testing, who contacted PHE to offer their services in March, but were either ignored or rebuffed.

 

just as with Trump and the image from New York, this lying slug needs to be held account for the 30,000 plus deaths in the UK - one in eight of every covid-19 death in the world

[Surfer 1,547]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

And Torino as well Jim. Three clubs out of 20. 15%. Doesn't sound good.

If it spreads to say 6 out of a squad of 18 at any club, won't that bring the restart effort to a halt?

It's one thing for a footballer to be out for a few months with an injury, quite another if they damage their lungs and lose their career. So in that sense they may be more fragile than the average person. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Surfer

[Van wink 2,994]

5 hours ago, Surfer said:

If it spreads to say 6 out of a squad of 18 at any club, won't that bring the restart effort to a halt?

It's one thing for a footballer to be out for a few months with an injury, quite another if they damage their lungs and lose their career. So in that sense they may be more fragile than the average person. 

And therein lies the problem. All this talk about life being full of risks, sport exposing participants to risk being the norm, quite correct, but the difference here is that the risks are understood and various degrees of mitigation are in place. We really don’t know what we are dealing with here, a completely different scenario from the norm.

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to add the draft plan in England is this:

The testing plan, still to be approved by clubs, would involve players and staff being tested twice a week during a three-week training period and the expected seven-week match schedule. Tests would be ordered centrally before being distributed to the clubs and the total cost is anticipated to reach £4m.

So a player could be tested clear on, say, Monday morning, and then train hard and play harder on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before being tested again on Thursday. Three full days with the virus (and potentially infecting others) and the probable extra danger precisely because they are a fit athlete.

Sorry Purple, but I need to edit your first line to : "Just to add the daft plan in England is this:"

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

11 hours ago, T said:

I’m not sure what people are not getting about test test test and test again and trace isolate and quarantine such that you the risk is very low.

 You would never do anything if you didnt accept some risk. I do a lot more dangerous sports  than that but manage the risk. No one is talking about any mass marathons. They are talking about a highly tested highly controlled group. Not something I’m getting exercising intensely in the park but I still do it bacause the risk is very low. Still a lot more risk from people drinking smoking and being fat than for healthy individuals in a controlled environment yet majority of UK merrily ignore  expert advice and abuse their bodies. 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the point you were claiming to make, which was that players in the Bundesliga would not have their health seriously threatened if they contacted  the coronavirus because they were much fitter than the average person:

The risk for the general population under 65 without pre conditions is the same as a 185 miles drive. so the risk will be even less for a fit and healthy group in a highly controlled environment. Not exactly a lot of old unfit obese professional footballers are there. 

Whereas, as the study I quoted strongly suggests, the converse is probably true. That their health will be seriously threatened, because training and playing not only means the players are more likely than the average person to inhale the virus but crucially that it is likely to to get deeper into the lungs that it does with an average person.

You have been stressing how we should take the views of experts over those of amateurs. I agree.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

11 hours ago, T said:

I’m not sure what people are not getting about test test test and test again and trace isolate and quarantine such that you the risk is very low.

I think that actually most people, other than perhaps the apologists for the UK government, do get that.

But nevertheless there is a risk and also considerable medical resources (both material and human) are required even to play a few football matches.

I think even in Germany where they are better resourced and mostly definitely in the UK where resources are still in short supply then it is entirely reasonable that the vast majority of people think there are much more important areas of life and the economy to restart (with the attendant risks and resources required) than playing football.

[Aggy 752]

12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

, elite athletes are more likely to inhale virus particles and direct them to the lower areas of the lung.

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

The preprint paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, also suggests that athletes who are asymptomatic could make their condition worse by infecting their lungs during strenuous exertion.

 

"The pattern of breathing during strenuous exercise changes dramatically by a tremendous increase of ventilation [i.e.: inspiratory and expiratory volumes of air], and of alveolar ventilation in particular," the authors state.

"Professional athletes [are] particularly exposed [much more than individuals of common population] due to their frequent practice of extreme and long-lasting exercise."

The researchers state that the "ideal lungs" of athletes, while helpful in normal conditions, significantly favor the deep inhalation of infectious agents.

So what they’re saying is exercise is bad for you... I’ve been saying that (whilst cracking open another bag of crisps) for years! 😉

[Mello Yello 2,278]

Only one letter separates fatness from fitness..... 

[T 190]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the point you were claiming to make, which was that players in the Bundesliga would not have their health seriously threatened if they contacted  the coronavirus because they were much fitter than the average person:

The risk for the general population under 65 without pre conditions is the same as a 185 miles drive. so the risk will be even less for a fit and healthy group in a highly controlled environment. Not exactly a lot of old unfit obese professional footballers are there. 

Whereas, as the study I quoted strongly suggests, the converse is probably true. That their health will be seriously threatened, because training and playing not only means the players are more likely than the average person to inhale the virus but crucially that it is likely to to get deeper into the lungs that it does with an average person.

You have been stressing how we should take the views of experts over those of amateurs. I agree.

I don't doubt that you are more at risk of getting a heavier dose which I do understand can result in a more severe case if you are working out hard and have not said otherwise.  I'm allergic to pollen and don't notice if going out for a walk in the park but do if i going for a hard bike ride so I get it personally. So that is not what I said. I'm saying your risk of getting it is very low if you are testing and islating people in a controled group as that will over time eliminate the virus. Also people's ability to cope is linked to fitness. So the NHS risk assessemnt score card of coping with Covid 19 is based on age, pre-conditions and fitness. Professional footballers would score a very low risk on all these levels together with their low risk of catching the virues from a tested, isolated, quarantined group. Therefore these low risks of catching and coping offset the potentially higher doses of virus.  

Germany has more testing and treatment resouces than it knows what to do with. There is no lock down anymore. Given  the situation is different in the UK I have said elsewhere that I would not support releasing restrictions in the UK until PPE, testing, tracing and isolating are in place.  These are things Germany has had in place since the start but the UK is still working on getting in place so the situation is completely different. In Germany the whole of society is starting to function again with restrictions and football is just part of that whereas in the UK starting now would be out of step with the rest of sociaey and I wouldn't support that. A key criteria in Germany was that football didn't getting special treatment so they are only being allowed to restart because the rest of society is restarting. I'm back at work next week so I don't see why footballers should also not work.   

[Mello Yello 2,278]

3 minutes ago, T said:

I don't doubt that you are more at risk of getting a heavier dose which I do understand can result in a more severe case if you are working out hard and have not said otherwise.  I'm allergic to pollen and don't notice if going out for a walk in the park but do if i going for a hard bike ride so I get it personally. So that is not what I said. I'm saying your risk of getting it is very low if you are testing and islating people in a controled group as that will over time eliminate the virus. Also people's ability to cope is linked to fitness. So the NHS risk assessemnt score card of coping with Covid 19 is based on age, pre-conditions and fitness. Professional footballers would score a very low risk on all these levels together with their low risk of catching the virues from a tested, isolated, quarantined group. Therefore these low risks of catching and coping offset the potentially higher doses of virus.  

Germany has more testing and treatment resouces than it knows what to do with. There is no lock down anymore. Given  the situation is different in the UK I have said elsewhere that I would not support releasing restrictions in the UK until PPE, testing, tracing and isolating are in place.  These are things Germany has had in place since the start but the UK is still working on getting in place so the situation is completely different. In Germany the whole of society is starting to function again with restrictions and football is just part of that whereas in the UK starting now would be out of step with the rest of sociaey and I wouldn't support that. A key criteria in Germany was that football didn't getting special treatment so they are only being allowed to restart because the rest of society is restarting. I'm back at work next week so I don't see why footballers should also not work.   

Will you be celebrating VE Day today.....perchance?....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

10 minutes ago, T said:

I don't doubt that you are more at risk of getting a heavier dose which I do understand can result in a more severe case if you are working out hard and have not said otherwise.

But had not said it either, and indeed had claimed the exact opposite, that footballers were less at risk of serious health consequences from the virus than ordinary people:

The risk for the general population under 65 without pre conditions is the same as a 185 miles drive. so the risk will be even less for a fit and healthy group in a highly controlled environment. Not exactly a lot of old unfit obese professional footballers are there. 

And your first response to my highlighting this expert medical study, which strongly suggested your amateur view was wrong; was to ignore the point entirely and instead repeat irrelevant stuff about testing. Post how you like, of course, but it might have been wiser in this case to admit to error straight away rather than have it inevitably wrung out of you.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm back at work next week so I don't see why footballers should also not work.   

Would you risk your health and the health of others if you were getting paid not to go to work?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I have run quite a lot of marathons and halves and of course thousands of miles training and believe me you spit, sweat and cough so much. The hedgerows of West Cornwall must be full of it.

And I have seen enough football matches to see the same thing. Please someone reassure me that as two players go up for a header together that there will be no bodily fluid or vapour of any sort that will not cross contaminate.

[T 190]

Purple you’ve just said I haven’t ever disagreed with the risk of getting a more severe dose.so I don’t know why you are getting your knickers in a twist.
 

But your risk of getting any dose in very low in the first place if you are in a controlled group using testing isolation and quarantine after a number of cycles. Your risk of dying is a lot less if you are fit and healthy unless you are claiming it is beneficial to be fat like the majority of the UK. So your overall risk factor is a multiple of getting the disease in the first place by a factor for your age and for other conditions and your fitness and yes agreed  severity of dose. The risk of getting it, age , preconditions and fitness for a professional footballer are all very low but severity risk is higher so there overall risk is still very low which was my main point.
 

I’m certainly exercising hard in public as recommended because ultimately my risk of dying from heart disease and diabetes by being fat and unfit are much higher than dying of Covid 19 where the risk is significantly higher from dying from Covid 19 is higher of you have a weak heart and long and diabetes. My lung function is also officially super because I follow expert advice but no where near a professional sports person who would have excently functioning lungs so better able to cope.
 

They are of course taking precautions based on expert medical advice so I’m not claiming to know better than the experts it is you. You have to look at the overall risk not just one element of it. So you have lost sight of the overall picture by obsessing about one valid point which is just one part of the picture. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Poor old Kyle Walker, jumping on the Mental Health bandwagon. And that is an insult to those people who really do have Mental Health problems

On Thursday, the Sun reported that Walker broke lockdown three times in 24 hours this week with visits to his sister, his parents and a cycle ride with a friend.

Walker responded in the early hours of Friday with a social media post explaining his actions. He said the reports were affecting his and his family's mental health, adding: "At what stage do my feelings get taken into consideration?"

[Making Plans 936]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8301469/German-towns-bring-lockdown-coronavirus-spike.html

It's all going swimingly then

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

7 hours ago, T said:

Purple you’ve just said I haven’t ever disagreed with the risk of getting a more severe dose.so I don’t know why you are getting your knickers in a twist.
 

 

Er, no. You  have that wrong. What I - correctly - said was that you had never said there was a risk of Bundesliga players getting the virus  more severely, and indeed had claimed the opposite - that because they were fit they would be less at risk.

I understand quite well what is going on here. You feel the need, often with good reason, to defend Germany and things German. As part of that you claimed the virus risk to Bundesliga players would be lower than for ordinary people because they were extra fit.

When I posted that expert study which strongly indicated the opposite was potentially true, and players might get deep-seated problems, the sensible and time-saving thing to do would have been to acknowledge that and at least partially revise your opinion accordingly.

Instead you ignored the point and posted irrelevant guff about testing, with the result that the admission that your original claim was flawed had to be dragged out of you.

Edited May 8, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[T 190]

4 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8301469/German-towns-bring-lockdown-coronavirus-spike.html

It's all going swimingly then

Yes that was exactly what the agreed and announced plan is if you had actually read which you clearly havent based on your comment and I wouldnt expect you to suspect  unless you followed the local news and understand German. So yes it is going exactly as planned.  The idea is that you have local restrictions where they are required rather than broadbrush restrictions where they are not required. To do this you need extensive testing and tracing in place. If you want to know the actual news go to the local souce and if you want misinformation with a distorted story then I whole heartily recommend the Daily Fail.   

[T 190]

Sorry Purple but you are getting hung up on trying to be pendantic becasue you are so stubborn you can never admit to be being wrong and missing the big picture. .

I've never suggested that getting a higher dose isnt more risky becasue I've always understood that it is a risk factor.  I'm talking about the overall rsik to them from Covid 19.i.e- to be explicit dying.  So I'm agreeing with you that I can well believe if you are working out hard you can get a higher dose which can result is a  more severe case and is a valid point but becasue you are mitagating the risk with test, trace and isolate and they are young fit and healthy with no pre-conditions then there overall risk is low. The avarege age of people dying is Germany is 80 odd. The people dying are predominantly old, with pre-condictions and poor fitmess and health. There is always a risk of an outlier but you could equally argue you should not do exeercise  and play football becasue there is a higher risk of a professional footballer getting a heart attack from an undiagnosed condition from extreme exertion but that equally isn't an argument for being unfit and unhealthy as overall being fit will reduce your risk.

To give you an example to illustrate the pointI I ski  off-piste which some people would not do becasue it is inherently more dangerous. However. becasue I follow expert advice based on statisitical analysis together with  training, the right  equipment amd professional qualified experts than statiistically it is no more dangerous than driving to the resort. So if you have an increased risk you take mitigating actions to reduce that overall risk to an acceptable level. So with extensiive testing , tracing, isolation, quarantining, young age, fitness and health in an expert medically controlled envoronment than their overall risk is low and it is their overall risk that I'm talkiing about not just one risk factor element which you are obsessing about so missing the wood from the trees. 

[stewfil 10]

13 hours ago, Making Plans said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8301469/German-towns-bring-lockdown-coronavirus-spike.html

It's all going swimingly then

What is the time from test to result? 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

12 hours ago, T said:

Sorry Purple but you are getting hung up on trying to be pendantic becasue you are so stubborn you can never admit to be being wrong and missing the big picture. .

I've never suggested that getting a higher dose isnt more risky becasue I've always understood that it is a risk factor.  I'm talking about the overall rsik to them from Covid 19.i.e- to be explicit dying.  So I'm agreeing with you that I can well believe if you are working out hard you can get a higher dose which can result is a  more severe case and is a valid point but becasue you are mitagating the risk with test, trace and isolate and they are young fit and healthy with no pre-conditions then there overall risk is low. 

The point being made in the research has nothing to do with a “higher dose”, viral load, the point being made is that the clinical effect of infection can be far worse because of virus particles entering deep seated areas of lung tissue in athletic individuals.

[Well b back 3,186]

On 07/05/2020 at 21:08, T said:

I’m not sure what people are not getting about test test test and test again and trace isolate and quarantine such that you the risk is very low.

 You would never do anything if you didnt accept some risk. I do a lot more dangerous sports  than that but manage the risk. No one is talking about any mass marathons. They are talking about a highly tested highly controlled group. Not something I’m getting exercising intensely in the park but I still do it bacause the risk is very low. Still a lot more risk from people drinking smoking and being fat than for healthy individuals in a controlled environment yet majority of UK merrily ignore  expert advice and abuse their bodies. 

A 6 week old baby died yesterday.

What you are not getting is our carers still can’t get tests ( nor residents ) whilst footballers will have an unlimited supply. At this moment in time I would suggest carers ( I guess there are plenty that smoke, drink and don’t exercise enough ) are far more worthy of tests at the moment than footballers. Hospitals are still complaining of a lack of PPE whilst football, no problem. Again I would say nurses are far more worthy of being given this than footballers.

By all means finish this season, but when it is safe and appropriate to do so. This is simply about money, not just this seasons but next seasons as well. If this and or the Bundesliga goes wrong there will be no next season. 

[Indy 3,283]

9 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The point being made in the research has nothing to do with a “higher dose”, viral load, the point being made is that the clinical effect of infection can be far worse because of virus particles entering deep seated areas of lung tissue in athletic individuals.

Again anything in higher dose could be more dangerous, but the reality is three months was always going to be the target to get going again, no country can afford to go another three months as the economy has already hit 14% decline or more in most countries.

Still the real facts are the you’re very very unlikely to die of just Covid unless you’re well into your 80’s. Most footballers are not obese, have too many health critical conditions and if they don’t want to participate, then they should be allowed not to play.

As for the rest of us, we now have some measure of the virus, the NHS have more capacity for any spike in certain areas and testing is still ramping up. If up you’re not comfortable in going back out or are at higher risk then carry on isolating once we lift it.