Fans at Home Park (2,000 fans allowed in v MK Dons)

[Cobi Budge]

Health is more important than any game of football and I cannot understand why some fans are looking for loopholes and questioning expert opinion. The government are not issuing these rules for the hell of it .I can only assume that those who are complaining have not had any friends or relatives who have been struck down by this dreadful virus.

Multiple scientists and medical professionals have said there is no evidence whatsoever behind keeping fans away from stadiums, as well as the 22:00 curfew. The inconsistencies in the governments response to COVID has shown they are just making up rules for the hell of it.

 

[Sam Barker]

Health is more important than any game of football and I cannot understand why some fans are looking for loopholes and questioning expert opinion. The government are not issuing these rules for the hell of it .I can only assume that those who are complaining have not had any friends or relatives who have been struck down by this dreadful virus.

Because the experts have done such a fantastic job to this point. :facepalm:

 

[Cobi Budge]

There really isn’t an argument to made that allowing people to attend concerts at the O2 or the Royal Albert Hall is in any way more ‘covid secure’ than attending football.

This line that gets trotted out about travel to and from the stadiums being the problem only makes sense if other ‘mass gatherings’ are banned, which at this point they clearly are not. Unless I’ve missed something wouldn’t people be travelling to the O2 by the same means, or has teleportation been invented?

I think people underestimate the lengths that clubs have gone to in preparation for fans to return. Colchester United look to have ripped up every fourth seat or so!

Exactly, particularly the last paragraph. Some people seem to think letting fans back into stadiums means an immediate return to pre COVID standards, when in actual fact clubs including Argyle have done a huge amount of work to put into place plans that make stadiums safer than pubs and restaurants, sadly wasted work in light of the governments constant U-turns. Even the 1000 initiave which was partially implemented was a start, called short due to overreactionary decision making. predict 15-20% of EFL clubs will cease to exist before March without fans, that's a huge price to pay whilst at the same time people are allowed to go to pubs, cinemas, theatres etc.

 

[Eddie]

There are clearly groups of people who are seriously at risk. With ten months worth of data, these can now be reliably identified. This represents a tiny proportion of the population. It is up to them, with the help of the rest of us, to take precautions - or take their chance. It's not fair that these groups are disproportionately endangered, but life's like that.

It's unfair on the vast majority of the population to be restricted, particularly as this, with few exceptions, includes all younger people trying to make their way in the world and enjoy life.

With respect, if physical wellbeing is of paramount importance, no one would get into a car, have a drink, smoke a cigarette -
or support Argyle!!!

Life if full of risks, which we manage. Covid should be no different.

Again, I invite sceptics to examine the statistics showing the risk to the vast majority from Covid. It's negligible.

 

[Ponty]

Should definitely close the pubs, I think they are the catalyst of the second wave.

I should have been out last weekend, room booked Saturday night for a weekend with the lads.
I cancelled, I live with four of my Grandchildren and there's no way I'd put my family at risk.

 

[oldage]

There really isn’t an argument to made that allowing people to attend concerts at the O2 or the Royal Albert Hall is in any way more ‘covid secure’ than attending football.

This line that gets trotted out about travel to and from the stadiums being the problem only makes sense if other ‘mass gatherings’ are banned, which at this point they clearly are not. Unless I’ve missed something wouldn’t people be travelling to the O2 by the same means, or has teleportation been invented?

I think people underestimate the lengths that clubs have gone to in preparation for fans to return. Colchester United look to have ripped up every fourth seat or so!

Exactly, particularly the last paragraph. Some people seem to think letting fans back into stadiums means an immediate return to pre COVID standards, when in actual fact clubs including Argyle have done a huge amount of work to put into place plans that make stadiums safer than pubs and restaurants, sadly wasted work in light of the governments constant U-turns. Even the 1000 initiave which was partially implemented was a start, called short due to overreactionary decision making. predict 15-20% of EFL clubs will cease to exist before March without fans, that's a huge price to pay whilst at the same time people are allowed to go to pubs, cinemas, theatres etc.

Its all about priorities and opinions.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Nobody knows when a vaccine will be readily available, some experts predict years. We cant continue to hugely restrict people's lives, wreck the economy and on a football level lose so many clubs just in the hope that a vaccine will come soon. More lives will be lost because of peoples mental health, because of unemploymemt/poverty and a host of other reasons than possibly will be lost due to COVID. Lockdowns do not cure the virus, lockdowns partially delay the virus. We have to find a way to get on with normal life whilst shielding the vulnerable.

 

[oldage]

Nobody knows when a vaccine will be readily available, some experts predict years. We cant continue to hugely restrict people's lives, wreck the economy and on a football level lose so many clubs just in the hope that a vaccine will come soon. More lives will be lost because of peoples mental health, because of unemploymemt/poverty and a host of other reasons than possibly will be lost due to COVID. Lockdowns do not cure the virus, lockdowns partially delay the virus. We have to find a way to get on with normal life whilst shielding the vulnerable.

Are you old enough to vote yet?

 

[oldage]

There are clearly groups of people who are seriously at risk. With ten months worth of data, these can now be reliably identified. This represents a tiny proportion of the population. It is up to them, with the help of the rest of us, to take precautions - or take their chance. It's not fair that these groups are disproportionately endangered, but life's like that.

It's unfair on the vast majority of the population to be restricted, particularly as this, with few exceptions, includes all younger people trying to make their way in the world and enjoy life.

With respect, if physical wellbeing is of paramount importance, no one would get into a car, have a drink, smoke a cigarette -
or support Argyle!!!

Life if full of risks, which we manage. Covid should be no different.

Again, I invite sceptics to examine the statistics showing the risk to the vast majority from Covid. It's negligible.

Unbelievable! If your attitude is indicative of the majority of the public no wonder we are struggling to control the pandemic.
Just shows what a selfish society we have turned into and dare I say it ,I would have expected a 77year old to have more sense.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Nobody knows when a vaccine will be readily available, some experts predict years. We cant continue to hugely restrict people's lives, wreck the economy and on a football level lose so many clubs just in the hope that a vaccine will come soon. More lives will be lost because of peoples mental health, because of unemploymemt/poverty and a host of other reasons than possibly will be lost due to COVID. Lockdowns do not cure the virus, lockdowns partially delay the virus. We have to find a way to get on with normal life whilst shielding the vulnerable.

Are you old enough to vote yet?

That's a great rebuttal of the points I made isn't it? And yes I have been for nearly 7 years I'm afraid. Apologies that younger people also have a voice.

 

[jimsing]

There are clearly groups of people who are seriously at risk. With ten months worth of data, these can now be reliably identified. This represents a tiny proportion of the population. It is up to them, with the help of the rest of us, to take precautions - or take their chance. It's not fair that these groups are disproportionately endangered, but life's like that.

It's unfair on the vast majority of the population to be restricted, particularly as this, with few exceptions, includes all younger people trying to make their way in the world and enjoy life.

With respect, if physical wellbeing is of paramount importance, no one would get into a car, have a drink, smoke a cigarette -
or support Argyle!!!

Life if full of risks, which we manage. Covid should be no different.

Again, I invite sceptics to examine the statistics showing the risk to the vast majority from Covid. It's negligible.

So what you are saying is let us go back to normality. and let the old and vulnerable get the virus, with a large majority of these losing their lives.

Your selfish attitude goes before you. If you were in the old or vulnerable group, would you be of the same opinion?

 

[Cobi Budge]

There are clearly groups of people who are seriously at risk. With ten months worth of data, these can now be reliably identified. This represents a tiny proportion of the population. It is up to them, with the help of the rest of us, to take precautions - or take their chance. It's not fair that these groups are disproportionately endangered, but life's like that.

It's unfair on the vast majority of the population to be restricted, particularly as this, with few exceptions, includes all younger people trying to make their way in the world and enjoy life.

With respect, if physical wellbeing is of paramount importance, no one would get into a car, have a drink, smoke a cigarette -
or support Argyle!!!

Life if full of risks, which we manage. Covid should be no different.

Again, I invite sceptics to examine the statistics showing the risk to the vast majority from Covid. It's negligible.

So what you are saying is let us go back to normality. and let the old and vulnerable get the virus, with a large majority of these losing their lives.

Your selfish attitude goes before you. If you were in the old or vulnerable group, would you be of the same opinion?

Eddie already specified earlier in the thread that he is 77 years of age. I also know of many older people in my family, close to my family, and who frequent my local pub, who are also keen to get back to something that resembles normal and they understand the risks. I'm not saying my opinion is definitively right and yours is wrong, however, it's wrong to suggest that everyone in the older/vulnerable categories is in favour of a lockdown.

 

[jimsing]

No need to talk about lockdown here.

If a 77 year old wishes to get covid then he is going about it the right way, and I'm not too concerned as it is his choice, but who will he pass it on to, and who will they pass it on to, and who will they pass it on to, until the 77 year old gets a positive test and the test and trace system gears into action?
I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them, and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who passes it on to someone who dies as a result of getting it!

 

[oldage]

Nobody knows when a vaccine will be readily available, some experts predict years. We cant continue to hugely restrict people's lives, wreck the economy and on a football level lose so many clubs just in the hope that a vaccine will come soon. More lives will be lost because of peoples mental health, because of unemploymemt/poverty and a host of other reasons than possibly will be lost due to COVID. Lockdowns do not cure the virus, lockdowns partially delay the virus. We have to find a way to get on with normal life whilst shielding the vulnerable.

Are you old enough to vote yet?

That's a great rebuttal of the points I made isn't it? And yes I have been for nearly 7 years I'm afraid. Apologies that younger people also have a voice.

Now it makes sense.It's your age group, with scant regard for others ,that is causing the surge in cases.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Nobody knows when a vaccine will be readily available, some experts predict years. We cant continue to hugely restrict people's lives, wreck the economy and on a football level lose so many clubs just in the hope that a vaccine will come soon. More lives will be lost because of peoples mental health, because of unemploymemt/poverty and a host of other reasons than possibly will be lost due to COVID. Lockdowns do not cure the virus, lockdowns partially delay the virus. We have to find a way to get on with normal life whilst shielding the vulnerable.

Are you old enough to vote yet?

That's a great rebuttal of the points I made isn't it? And yes I have been for nearly 7 years I'm afraid. Apologies that younger people also have a voice.

Now it makes sense.It's your age group, with scant regard for others ,that is causing the surge in cases.

That seems rather insulting and unnecessary.

I've been following COVID regulations since the very beginning of the pandemic, including distancing myself from close immediate relatives and friends who have conditions which make them vulnerable, which has been tough. Just because my opinion differs to yours doesn't mean that I don't recognise the seriousness of the pandemic and it doesn't mean I have no regard for others.