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

[warney]

The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Balderdash!
Current estimates are that 25% of the UK population have had Covid. 42.500 have died as a result. That's a mortality rate of around 0.25% of people who were infected. So you're saying if Argyle have a gate of 10000, 25 of those fans will die travelling to or from the game?!
Also, for every Covid death there are many more suffering the long-term and debilitating effects of what's termed "long" Covid.Mortality is weighted towards the elderly and infirm. Long Covid isn't.
By all means take your chances by going to matches but don't try to dress it up as something without risk or consequences.

So presumably you think that there should be a complete national lockdown again as we had in April? Because saying it’s fine for tens of thousands of people to attend Westfield shopping centre indoors on a Saturday but that a similar number of people can’t attend a football match outdoors is just ridiculous. You can’t play the economy card either because football clubs are an important part of the economy, either through the people they employ directly or the services they use such as pitch maintenance firms and catering companies etc. That’s not to mention the really important work they do in the community.

There has to be a consistent approach. Either lock everything down for an indefinite period (which I’m totally against because where will it end, a vaccine is months if not years away)) or let life proceed in a way that is as Covid secure as possible.

No, I don't think there should be a total lockdown. I was merely disputing the justification of using accident statistics as a comparison to Covid risks. As per my last sentence - people need to be able to go out and do things, at least to a limited extent, but the risks of doing so must always be considered and people must act accordingly.

 

[Devongreenowl]

The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Balderdash!
Current estimates are that 25% of the UK population have had Covid. 42.500 have died as a result. That's a mortality rate of around 0.25% of people who were infected. So you're saying if Argyle have a gate of 10000, 25 of those fans will die travelling to or from the game?!
Also, for every Covid death there are many more suffering the long-term and debilitating effects of what's termed "long" Covid.Mortality is weighted towards the elderly and infirm. Long Covid isn't.
By all means take your chances by going to matches but don't try to dress it up as something without risk or consequences.

So presumably you think that there should be a complete national lockdown again as we had in April? Because saying it’s fine for tens of thousands of people to attend Westfield shopping centre indoors on a Saturday but that a similar number of people can’t attend a football match outdoors is just ridiculous. You can’t play the economy card either because football clubs are an important part of the economy, either through the people they employ directly or the services they use such as pitch maintenance firms and catering companies etc. That’s not to mention the really important work they do in the community.

There has to be a consistent approach. Either lock everything down for an indefinite period (which I’m totally against because where will it end, a vaccine is months if not years away)) or let life proceed in a way that is as Covid secure as possible.

You might as well bang your head against a brick wall Herts, than try and have an alternative opinion to the lockdown fanatics on here. There’s no logic to the continued complete shutdown of outdoor sport, live theatre, gigs etc when it’s supposedly fine to go to the pub (until 10pm of course), go to an airport, get on an aircraft, visit an indoor shopping centre, Etc etc.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Encouraging people to visit cinemas - stuffy, small, indoor spaces - whilst simultaneously saying that being in an outdoor, expansive sports stadium is too dangerous, seems absolutely absurd.

The danger is not being in an outdoor, expansive stadium, the danger is from how people get to and from the stadium and what they do before and after the event.

The cinema is a controlled environment with lots of COVID mitigations in place. Whereas at the end of a game as an example I doubt it would be easy to enforce or implement social distancing at the squeeze point behind the corner of the Lyndhurst and Devonport.

Similarly for London Clubs how would social distancing work on the tubes and trains after matches?

As been mentioned the club would release fans from the stadium block by block to ensure there are staggered leaving times.
Thousands travel to and from work in Plymouth each day at roughly the same time, Babcock, Princess Yachts etc release their employees into Plymouth each day at the same time.

Argyle themselves have said they are ready to go and have provided a safe environment.
A football stadium with limited capacity would be one of the safest and most controlled environments at the moment - temperature checks upon arrival, spaced seating, name and addresses of fans, outdoors, one way systems, masks and staggered leaving times.

 

[Devongreenowl]

The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Balderdash!
Current estimates are that 25% of the UK population have had Covid. 42.500 have died as a result. That's a mortality rate of around 0.25% of people who were infected. So you're saying if Argyle have a gate of 10000, 25 of those fans will die travelling to or from the game?!
Also, for every Covid death there are many more suffering the long-term and debilitating effects of what's termed "long" Covid.Mortality is weighted towards the elderly and infirm. Long Covid isn't.
By all means take your chances by going to matches but don't try to dress it up as something without risk or consequences.

So presumably you think that there should be a complete national lockdown again as we had in April? Because saying it’s fine for tens of thousands of people to attend Westfield shopping centre indoors on a Saturday but that a similar number of people can’t attend a football match outdoors is just ridiculous. You can’t play the economy card either because football clubs are an important part of the economy, either through the people they employ directly or the services they use such as pitch maintenance firms and catering companies etc. That’s not to mention the really important work they do in the community.

There has to be a consistent approach. Either lock everything down for an indefinite period (which I’m totally against because where will it end, a vaccine is months if not years away)) or let life proceed in a way that is as Covid secure as possible.

No, I don't think there should be a total lockdown. I was merely disputing the justification of using accident statistics as a comparison to Covid risks. As per my last sentence - people need to be able to go out and do things, at least to a limited extent, but the risks of doing so must always be considered and people must act accordingly.

You’re right to query the accident stats, although current deaths and serious injury from RTC's are about 2500 a month with 150-200 of those being deaths, so not SO far out now with current Covid stats. Eddie might have pointed out how much more likely it is to die of other causes now as a result of Covid restrictions. Breast cancer charities report at least 9000 cases missed due to lack of availability of scans, other cancers not being treated, heart attacks and strokes have significantly increased due to people being scared to go to hospital, lack of gp appointments etc. With death rates and hospital admissions From Covid a fraction of what they were in the beginning, there are some very serious questions being asked by other scientists and academics outside SAGE, so people on forums like this who patronise others for having an alternative view to theirs, should have a word with themselves.

What does the Covid death rate need to be before some people start to question whether our current approach is bad for not only the economy, but our general well-being? Zero? 10? 100?

 

[oldage]

Unlike football covid 19 is not a game. It is an unpredictable virus which nobody has experienced before .We have been inconvenienced for about 7 months but surely it is better to put up with a restrictive lifestyle for a few more months than take the risk of more infections particularly during the winter months?
If the risk is as miniscule as some fans are suggesting what do the government gain by stopping fans attending games?

 

[Ponty]

We could go round in circles all day here we have one side who think it's safe and one side who doesn't.
I hope for you that want to go the Government has a change of mind so you can attend and enjoy your football.
I respect your views and hope you can mine.
I won't be going.

 

[cheshiregreen]

A view from Peterborough.

https://www.theposh.com/news/2020/october/letfansin/

 

[Sam Barker]

The latest nonsense from the government is that the o2 arena in London is allowed to host a concert for 4,700 people. It’s absurd that that can be allowed in an indoor venue (a venue where nearly everyone will arrive by public transport) but we can’t have 5,000 season ticket holders in an outdoor venue where a much higher proportion of attendees won’t use public transport. Can anyone possibly defend that? It’s disgraceful and non sensical and is indicative of the government’s appalling handling of this whole crisis.

Argyle are better off playing behind closed doors than opening up for 5000.

If that’s the case the why are Argyle one of the clubs publishing statements in support of letting fans in?

 

[Devongreenowl]

We could go round in circles all day here we have one side who think it's safe and one side who doesn't.
I hope for you that want to go the Government has a change of mind so you can attend and enjoy your football.
I respect your views and hope you can mine.
I won't be going.

Totally respect your view Ponty as you’re not insulting others. I’m not saying it’s ‘safe’ but I would still go, with certain safety measures in place. I feel I’m less likely to get it at Argyle than if I go into Exeter where the shopping centre may be full of students! I imagine it’s the same at the Drake centre. I also respect the rights of students too. There’s a balance to be struck that’s all I’m saying.

 

[SWTT]

The latest nonsense from the government is that the o2 arena in London is allowed to host a concert for 4,700 people. It’s absurd that that can be allowed in an indoor venue (a venue where nearly everyone will arrive by public transport) but we can’t have 5,000 season ticket holders in an outdoor venue where a much higher proportion of attendees won’t use public transport. Can anyone possibly defend that? It’s disgraceful and non sensical and is indicative of the government’s appalling handling of this whole crisis.

Argyle are better off playing behind closed doors than opening up for 5000.

Where's the backing for this?

The club are fully behind letting fans back in, with covid-safe measures. Do you think the club anticipates a 50% capacity for this? :lol:

 

[Ponty]

The latest nonsense from the government is that the o2 arena in London is allowed to host a concert for 4,700 people. It’s absurd that that can be allowed in an indoor venue (a venue where nearly everyone will arrive by public transport) but we can’t have 5,000 season ticket holders in an outdoor venue where a much higher proportion of attendees won’t use public transport. Can anyone possibly defend that? It’s disgraceful and non sensical and is indicative of the government’s appalling handling of this whole crisis.

Argyle are better off playing behind closed doors than opening up for 5000.

If that’s the case the why are Argyle one of the clubs publishing statements in support of letting fans in?

I'm sure I read it in a Ryan Lowe interview on a BBC website. I can't find it anywhere now.

 

[Balham Green]

The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Balderdash!
Current estimates are that 25% of the UK population have had Covid. 42.500 have died as a result. That's a mortality rate of around 0.25% of people who were infected. So you're saying if Argyle have a gate of 10000, 25 of those fans will die travelling to or from the game?!
Also, for every Covid death there are many more suffering the long-term and debilitating effects of what's termed "long" Covid.Mortality is weighted towards the elderly and infirm. Long Covid isn't.
By all means take your chances by going to matches but don't try to dress it up as something without risk or consequences.

So presumably you think that there should be a complete national lockdown again as we had in April? Because saying it’s fine for tens of thousands of people to attend Westfield shopping centre indoors on a Saturday but that a similar number of people can’t attend a football match outdoors is just ridiculous. You can’t play the economy card either because football clubs are an important part of the economy, either through the people they employ directly or the services they use such as pitch maintenance firms and catering companies etc. That’s not to mention the really important work they do in the community.

There has to be a consistent approach. Either lock everything down for an indefinite period (which I’m totally against because where will it end, a vaccine is months if not years away)) or let life proceed in a way that is as Covid secure as possible.

No, I don't think there should be a total lockdown. I was merely disputing the justification of using accident statistics as a comparison to Covid risks. As per my last sentence - people need to be able to go out and do things, at least to a limited extent, but the risks of doing so must always be considered and people must act accordingly.

You’re right to query the accident stats, although current deaths and serious injury from RTC's are about 2500 a month with 150-200 of those being deaths, so not SO far out now with current Covid stats. Eddie might have pointed out how much more likely it is to die of other causes now as a result of Covid restrictions. Breast cancer charities report at least 9000 cases missed due to lack of availability of scans, other cancers not being treated, heart attacks and strokes have significantly increased due to people being scared to go to hospital, lack of gp appointments etc. With death rates and hospital admissions From Covid a fraction of what they were in the beginning, there are some very serious questions being asked by other scientists and academics outside SAGE, so people on forums like this who patronise others for having an alternative view to theirs, should have a word with themselves.

What does the Covid death rate need to be before some people start to question whether our current approach is bad for not only the economy, but our general well-being? Zero? 10? 100?

'so not SO far out now with current Covid stats'??? Over 40000 dead with Covid in a few months. 1700 die from RTA's every year so how do you square that. Makes no sense whatsoever.
We know deaths are low currently. How hard is it to understand there is a lag and the more that infections increase the greater will be the strain on hospitals with deaths increasing. That is not that hard to recognize is it for anybody who doesn't have an agenda and will stick to it whatever the evidence to the contrary?

 

[Quizmike]

The poster who said that the danger lies in getting to and from the ground is spot on - and I'm not talking about Covid, but road accidents.
I invite people to examine the statistics on this - of which there's plenty. For a normal healthy person, of any age, you'd struggle even to become seriously ill with Covid, let alone die.
The risks that you run driving and all sorts of other things are off the scale compared to Covid.
I'm 77 and I'd be there (HP, that is) tomorrow, if they'd let me.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

Balderdash!
Current estimates are that 25% of the UK population have had Covid. 42.500 have died as a result. That's a mortality rate of around 0.25% of people who were infected. So you're saying if Argyle have a gate of 10000, 25 of those fans will die travelling to or from the game?!
Also, for every Covid death there are many more suffering the long-term and debilitating effects of what's termed "long" Covid.Mortality is weighted towards the elderly and infirm. Long Covid isn't.
By all means take your chances by going to matches but don't try to dress it up as something without risk or consequences.

So presumably you think that there should be a complete national lockdown again as we had in April? Because saying it’s fine for tens of thousands of people to attend Westfield shopping centre indoors on a Saturday but that a similar number of people can’t attend a football match outdoors is just ridiculous. You can’t play the economy card either because football clubs are an important part of the economy, either through the people they employ directly or the services they use such as pitch maintenance firms and catering companies etc. That’s not to mention the really important work they do in the community.

There has to be a consistent approach. Either lock everything down for an indefinite period (which I’m totally against because where will it end, a vaccine is months if not years away)) or let life proceed in a way that is as Covid secure as possible.

No, I don't think there should be a total lockdown. I was merely disputing the justification of using accident statistics as a comparison to Covid risks. As per my last sentence - people need to be able to go out and do things, at least to a limited extent, but the risks of doing so must always be considered and people must act accordingly.

You’re right to query the accident stats, although current deaths and serious injury from RTC's are about 2500 a month with 150-200 of those being deaths, so not SO far out now with current Covid stats. Eddie might have pointed out how much more likely it is to die of other causes now as a result of Covid restrictions. Breast cancer charities report at least 9000 cases missed due to lack of availability of scans, other cancers not being treated, heart attacks and strokes have significantly increased due to people being scared to go to hospital, lack of gp appointments etc. With death rates and hospital admissions From Covid a fraction of what they were in the beginning, there are some very serious questions being asked by other scientists and academics outside SAGE, so people on forums like this who patronise others for having an alternative view to theirs, should have a word with themselves.

What does the Covid death rate need to be before some people start to question whether our current approach is bad for not only the economy, but our general well-being? Zero? 10? 100?

Less than 79 people dying in a day would be a good start. Would you not agree?

 

[SWTT]

The latest nonsense from the government is that the o2 arena in London is allowed to host a concert for 4,700 people. It’s absurd that that can be allowed in an indoor venue (a venue where nearly everyone will arrive by public transport) but we can’t have 5,000 season ticket holders in an outdoor venue where a much higher proportion of attendees won’t use public transport. Can anyone possibly defend that? It’s disgraceful and non sensical and is indicative of the government’s appalling handling of this whole crisis.

Argyle are better off playing behind closed doors than opening up for 5000.

If that’s the case the why are Argyle one of the clubs publishing statements in support of letting fans in?

I'm sure I read it in a Ryan Lowe interview on a BBC website. I can't find it anywhere now.

Ah, so sharing nonsense as gospel then. Good to have you as site admin :thumbup: :facepalm:

 

[Ponty]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/amp/football/54386126

Here's your nonsense. Don't apologise I won't accept it.