Coronavirus in Football

[Moncherry]

I reiterate to anyone thinking having the international break was ill-advised, if it's too dangerous to play those games, then it's too dangerous to be playing any games. There were already outbreaks at clubs long before the international break, the difference is that the lot of you are Americans who think that since these international games are meaningless to you, they don't matter at all and shouldn't be played.

 

[East Coast Bias]

I reiterate to anyone thinking having the international break was ill-advised, if it's too dangerous to play those games, then it's too dangerous to be playing any games. There were already outbreaks at clubs long before the international break, the difference is that the lot of you are Americans who think that since these international games are meaningless to you, they don't matter at all and shouldn't be played.

It's not the same thing. Players have been largely contained within their clubs. Yes, some clubs have had outbreaks but when that happens, leagues cancel their games and keep them away from other teams, in an attempt to contain the spread. Generally a player's risk varies from where they're located. Now you've got players from all of the place mixed together, then going back to their teams. Depending on where players were playing, their risk of local contraction would vary. But now, you've got players from a ton of different places all packed together for a week, then back out.

The whole point of working to contain local outbreaks goes right out the window, doesn't it?

 

[YNWA14]

What if you live with them? Most jobs arent requiring a lot of travel.

You shouldn’t be living with someone who you feel is at risk if you are worried you could be in contact with the virus (or you can use other measures like staying separate, etc.). Again, you control who you interact with (except in extreme cases) so you have the power to control your own interaction with COVID. Given how few people (relative) actually have serious issues with the virus and their very identifiable demographic why would the entire world have to isolate rather than just controlling the at risk group?

 

[Moncherry]

It's not the same thing. Players have been largely contained within their clubs. Yes, some clubs have had outbreaks but when that happens, leagues cancel their games and keep them away from other teams, in an attempt to contain the spread. Generally a player's risk varies from where they're located. Now you've got players from all of the place mixed together, then going back to their teams. Depending on where players were playing, their risk of local contraction would vary. But now, you've got players from a ton of different places all packed together for a week, then back out.

The whole point of working to contain local outbreaks goes right out the window, doesn't it?

The players aren't largely contained within their clubs, because they aren't playing in a bubble. They were free to travel before the international break. They were playing games across the continent before the international break. It became apparent in August that there was going to be a resurgence in cases, without any international football being played. I suppose limiting the spread to the domestic populations of their countries is an acceptable risk, because they are playing more 'meaningful' club football?

And in regards to the Nations League being immaterial, there were no concerns about risking players for unimportant games when clubs were playing irrelevant shit like warm-up friendlies or league cup tournaments.

 

[East Coast Bias]

You shouldn’t be living with someone who you feel is at risk if you are worried you could be in contact with the virus (or you can use other measures like staying separate, etc.). Again, you control who you interact with (except in extreme cases) so you have the power to control your own interaction with COVID. Given how few people (relative) actually have serious issues with the virus and their very identifiable demographic why would the entire world have to isolate rather than just controlling the at risk group?

This world where the at risk population isolates and the not at risk keeps on keeping on doesn't exist.

All people at risk aren't 80 and in a condo at a retirement community. Plenty of working class people are at risk. Thinking anyone at risk should or even could stay home so other's aren't subject to sacrifice isn't realistic. People need to earn money. People need to get outpatient treatments. People need their parents to care for their kids so they can work (even at home).

That's not even accounting for multi generational living, which caused huge issues in Italy and Spain in the initial wave. In the US, over 60 million people live in situations of adult child + parents, or adult child + their kids + their parents.

Lastly, you're only considering death, which isn't the only bad result. People have developed long term issues. People lose their jobs. People end up with medical bills they cannot afford.

I'm sorry but this is just isn't a view that's thought through well. And to bring it back to "you can't shut down the world" - no, you cant. But in this very case, you're already playing club football. Adding international, mostly meaningless games, is stupid. Its now put the club seasons at risk and potentially local populations.

 

[Live in the Now]

You shouldn’t be living with someone who you feel is at risk if you are worried you could be in contact with the virus (or you can use other measures like staying separate, etc.). Again, you control who you interact with (except in extreme cases) so you have the power to control your own interaction with COVID. Given how few people (relative) actually have serious issues with the virus and their very identifiable demographic why would the entire world have to isolate rather than just controlling the at risk group?

You also cannot make people participate in the economy. The world wants to isolate because they do not want to go a year without seeing their family members, and they don't want to kill them. Many countries also have horrible health care and people in those countries cannot afford to get sick. This country is one of them. There are a sizeable amount of businesses in open areas even in this country who are now complaining that not enough people are going to them to keep them open. Even 10% of people not participating in the economy will kill the economy. The economy is tanked as a result of a pandemic that caused people to make personal decisions for themselves. People need to get over that and come to solutions that fix it.

Now as it comes to internationals, they just shouldn't be playing them.

 

[Live in the Now]

This world where the at risk population isolates and the not at risk keeps on keeping on doesn't exist.

All people at risk aren't 80 and in a condo at a retirement community. Plenty of working class people are at risk. Thinking anyone at risk should or even could stay home so other's aren't subject to sacrifice isn't realistic. People need to earn money. People need to get outpatient treatments. People need their parents to care for their kids so they can work (even at home).

That's not even accounting for multi generational living, which caused huge issues in Italy and Spain in the initial wave. In the US, over 60 million people live in situations of adult child + parents, or adult child + their kids + their parents.

Lastly, you're only considering death, which isn't the only bad result. People have developed long term issues. People lose their jobs. People end up with medical bills they cannot afford.

I'm sorry but this is just isn't a view that's thought through well. And to bring it back to "you can't shut down the world" - no, you cant. But in this very case, you're already playing club football. Adding international, mostly meaningless games, is stupid. Its now put the club seasons at risk and potentially local populations.

He's Canadian so he probably doesn't understand. I find this to be common with people who don't understand our healthcare system. In this country the vast majority of the population cannot afford to even be mildly infected. They also cannot afford to have jobs, and nobody is doing anything about this. If they lost their job because of the pandemic they don't even have health insurance. The US having these problems on its own is able to kill the world economy by itself. You can open the mall everywhere else but as long as the US is having these problems, the economy is dead.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

You shouldn’t be living with someone who you feel is at risk if you are worried you could be in contact with the virus (or you can use other measures like staying separate, etc.). Again, you control who you interact with (except in extreme cases) so you have the power to control your own interaction with COVID. Given how few people (relative) actually have serious issues with the virus and their very identifiable demographic why would the entire world have to isolate rather than just controlling the at risk group?

lool wth where do you expect people to move? You have elderly people living with their families where would you want them to go. This is incredibly privileged.

 

[YNWA14]

This world where the at risk population isolates and the not at risk keeps on keeping on doesn't exist.

Well, it obviously doesn't exist because they've decided that it needs to be everyone instead despite the reality of what's going on.

All people at risk aren't 80 and in a condo at a retirement community. Plenty of working class people are at risk. Thinking anyone at risk should or even could stay home so other's aren't subject to sacrifice isn't realistic. People need to earn money. People need to get outpatient treatments. People need their parents to care for their kids so they can work (even at home).

All of these things are true regardless of whether you isolate everyone or just the at risk population? You're asking a much larger portion of the population to give up their livelihoods and freedom while also affecting the physical and mental health of a much larger portion of the population. I'm interested in what the benefits are of isolating everyone as opposed to just the at risk population? I don't get what you're saying here; the at risk people already have to stay home in this situation, the biggest difference being that everyone else has to stay home too.

Lastly, you're only considering death, which isn't the only bad result. People have developed long term issues. People lose their jobs. People end up with medical bills they cannot afford.

I'm not only considering death. All of these things are true regardless of whether or not there is some massive isolation/quarantine or not. People will develop long term issues right now from isolation related issues, whether it's their livelihood, mental health or physical health, only again this is on a larger scale. These things have been happening long before COVID and will happen long after COVID because of the way society is structured.

Should COVID be eradicated today, do we shut down any business that has a person come down with the flu (for the same reasons as above)? What about driving? So we know that approximately 1.35 million people die every year because of 'road-traffic' related accidents (that doesn't include long term disability or other short/long term issues related to driving, and has been happening for a very long time); why aren't we lobbying to ban driving altogether in the above interest?

I'm sorry but this is just isn't a view that's thought through well. And to bring it back to "you can't shut down the world" - no, you cant. But in this very case, you're already playing club football. Adding international, mostly meaningless games, is stupid. Its now put the club seasons at risk and potentially local populations.

It is thought through quite a bit actually, and discussed at length. For the most part the people that are 'pro' isolation/quarantine are people that can comfortably live through that. I have seen and experienced both sides of it. I'm personally in a very comfortable position and can go through isolation without issue; however, I've seen and know enough that I don't believe this is the right course of action and I think it's doing more harm than good, though the harm it's causing is on a larger scale, will take longer to manifest and will have longer lasting implications.

Either way I'm not saying to ignore the virus. I think that there are measures that could be implemented that allowed countries to continue functioning somewhat normally (like we do with most viruses and diseases) while also focusing resources on protecting those that need it. I don't see the logic behind what is happening when you look at what's going on, and how it's going to impact the future.

The club season is no more at risk than it already was, and again all of these athletes are going to be out for a week or two and then come back like nothing happened (as has been the case over and over already). The media all the while making out to be a much bigger deal than it is.

Also, just as a sidenote, I actually would like to continue this discussion so hopefully people can refrain from personal attacks and strawmen so we can continue to discuss it in a civil manner. No, I don't wish death on or 'not care' about people that are dying because of COVID. Yes, I'd like to see the best possible outcome for everyone. I do not subscribe to the narrative that you are either pro-isolation or anti-life. There are a lot of valid perspectives on this and what is currently happening is a theory that has never been tested. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question not only the methods but also the motives and decision making behind what's going on.

 

[YNWA14]

lool wth where do you expect people to move? You have elderly people living with their families where would you want them to go. This is incredibly privileged.

Well like I said, there are other precautions they can take but if you have at risk people in your home then you should be taking the proper precautions? I don't believe that footballers fall into that category since that's where we're coming from with this. They're more than wealthy enough to have a proper living arrangement for any at risk family members if they believe they are a serious risk.

 

[S E P H]

Run for office with "I will allow 1 million Americans die so you can go to the mall again!"

See how that works.

This post is so all over the place, wow.

Vaccines kill people, you're saying because vaccines kill people we should stop administrating them? Flu kills people, why aren't you scared of that? Unprotected sex leads to the possibility of HPV and the chance of rectal and cervical cancer, should we lockdown sex?

No, I am not allowing 1 million Americans to die so you can go to the mall. That's stupid, I am saying is to open the mall and whoever wants to work there and shop there has their right to go there - including the risk. If you're scared and has someone susceptible to Covid, then stay away from high populated areas. I suggest that there should be a mandate from the Government that allows susceptible people to Covid - regardless of age - be allowed to work at home. A few friends fathers are doing just that because of their age, of course there are limitations, but there is also a lot to work here.

A factor you're also not considering is that domestic abuse and suicides increased during the the lockdowns, you care about the 5% of the population, but why don't you give a shit about the people who have mental problems or raised anxiety that their job might not be there in the next week?E: I should've also discussed testing which is how Korea as of now has steadily kept it's Covid total for the last four or so months. We never really needed a lockdown if the Government invested in testing instead of what we're doing now - which is testing people with possible symptoms. Testing after the fact is the most ludicrous thing you can do and helps no one since you've already spread it around during the incubation period. Korea got ahead of the game and tested everyone, which has been the opposite concerning hospitals in the NA.

Plus, as @YNWA14 mentioned in one of his posts above, the Covid death rates are exacerbated because more hospitals who have Covid patients, get more general funding from the US government. So if a person died of a heart attack or cancer, which had nothing to do with Covid, but had Covid during that period they passed away...the hospital counts that as a Covid death and more money from the Government (so if a person had Covid, but died by a gun...it's still considered a Covid death). That's why the Colorado Governor decided to change the death rates in the State and it lowed by around 15 to 25% for a virus that has a 97 to 99.8% recovery rate currently in the world. If you want to fear-monger over that, then you're entitled to that right as human.


Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the ...

Lockdown Suicides on the Rise | National Review

CDC: One quarter of young adults contemplated suicide during pandemic

Domestic abuse surged in lockdown, Panorama investigation finds

Stopping lockdown domestic abuse on my street

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext

 

[bluesfan94]

Vaccines kill people, you're saying because vaccines kill people we should stop administrating them? Flu kills people, why aren't you scared of that? Unprotected sex leads to the possibility of HPV and the chance of rectal and cervical cancer, should we lockdown sex?

Vaccines rarely (like very super rarely) kill people and also save tons of lives. Terrible example.
The flu kills people yes, but at a much lower rate. And we are scared of it, which is why there's an annual vaccine (which doesn't kill people). This has killed 5x as many Americans as the seasonal flu even after lockdown, masking, etc.
Yes, there is that chance, which is why we teach safe sex. But also a much much lower incidence rate and risk. Plus, sex is (generally) your choice whereas you can't make the same choice with COVID.

Try again.

Plus, as @YNWA14 mentioned in one of his posts above, the Covid death rates are exacerbated because more hospitals who have Covid patients, get more general funding from the US government. So if a person died of a heart attack or cancer, which had nothing to do with Covid, but had Covid during that period they passed away...the hospital counts that as a Covid death and more money from the Government (so if a person had Covid, but died by a gun...it's still considered a Covid death).

This is absolutely not true. Like nowhere near being accurate.

All of these things are true regardless of whether you isolate everyone or just the at risk population? You're asking a much larger portion of the population to give up their livelihoods and freedom while also affecting the physical and mental health of a much larger portion of the population. I'm interested in what the benefits are of isolating everyone as opposed to just the at risk population? I don't get what you're saying here; the at risk people already have to stay home in this situation, the biggest difference being that everyone else has to stay home too.

Sure, let's only isolate people who are considered at risk. That means everyone who is considered medically obese (42.4% of the American population). Everyone who is immunosuppressed (4% of the American population). Everyone who has asthma (7.7% of the American population). Everyone who has diabetes (10.5%). Everyone over 65 (16.21%). Everyone with high blood pressure (46%). Should I continue or do you get the point?

 

[Halladay]

I'm only going to mention this once, if your post has nothing to do with soccer, it won't be on here.

 

[maclean]

It's not the same thing. Players have been largely contained within their clubs. Yes, some clubs have had outbreaks but when that happens, leagues cancel their games and keep them away from other teams, in an attempt to contain the spread. Generally a player's risk varies from where they're located. Now you've got players from all of the place mixed together, then going back to their teams. Depending on where players were playing, their risk of local contraction would vary. But now, you've got players from a ton of different places all packed together for a week, then back out.

The whole point of working to contain local outbreaks goes right out the window, doesn't it?

If you think players have been contained, that is a misconception. Players are regularly tested, that is about as much as you can say. The only restrictions on travel in Europe currently are that some places require a test/quarantine on arrival. That said, I don't disagree that these matches are a case of playing with fire. Case in point, a large chunk of the Czech team ended up infected while in Cyprus and couldn't go on to their next game in Israel. Paradoxically in the meantime the Czech league has been shut down while the international games were going ahead. As for containing local outbreaks, I'd be all for closing all borders for a few months again, though that's an unpopular opinion.

 

[John Price]

 

[Juve]

It's only a matter of time before the leagues are suspended.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, with cold weather, cases will start to spike like crazy again.

 

[YNWA14]

Sure, let's only isolate people who are considered at risk. That means everyone who is considered medically obese (42.4% of the American population). Everyone who is immunosuppressed (4% of the American population). Everyone who has asthma (7.7% of the American population). Everyone who has diabetes (10.5%). Everyone over 65 (16.21%). Everyone with high blood pressure (46%). Should I continue or do you get the point?

A lot of these overlap, and this is disingenuous at best. Most of these people are not actually 'at risk' unless they are in already severely poor health. Increased risk and 'at risk' at not really the same thing and are important to distinguish (on top of which most of those are not 'confirmed' increased risks but are still under investigation: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)). As an example on the CDC website they use the 19-28 age range as the baseline for the virus (which is ridiculous as presented, tbh, since it encourages fear by simple presentation) and then goes on to list how much more at risk they are (say, 630x higher risk as someone who is 85 years old, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)). Keep in mind of course these increases in risk are multiplicative on something that is an absurdly low outcome already. Being 20 and obese does not make you 'at risk', it may increase an already infinitesimally small risk by a small amount but it's not really supported by any kind of data that you would be at anything more than a marginal risk in the same way you risk being hit by a car on the sidewalk if you're out walking (a mortality rate of 0.004% combined in people 69 and under in Canada for example using estimated number of infections and that was at the height of the pandemic, not recent data which has trended positively). This is keeping in mind that even those among the most at risk population, which should also be the most protected, there's a 90% recovery rate (that's in people 85+ with multiple underlying health conditions).

So if your point was to say that the general health of the average American is very concerning, and that it's a much bigger issue than COVID I 100% agree with you. Though that completely contradicts the current approach to COVID (which negatively impacts all of the above), and increases the risk in otherwise healthy people to develop those things, among mental health issues, poverty (which comes with a whole host of other issues) etc.

At the end of the day as far as how this relates to football? If anything you want the healthiest people in society to be the ones catching COVID; studies now are showing that a large part of what drives the severity of the virus is the 'viral load' that you are infected by (which could be why children, who typically spread a lot of viruses, aren't driving the spread of COVID in the same way nor are they having anywhere near the same ill effects). Naturally asymptomatic people, and people with milder symptoms will have a lower viral load when infecting others if they do come into contact with them (much like how some places are asserting that masks may be driving a level of immunity by still coming into contact with a smaller amount of the virus allowing antibodies to form without being exposed to the full virus in a similar way to how a vaccine works). Footballers will have almost no ill effects from being infected with COVID and can spread it among a healthy part of the population; obviously they should be taking care where this relates to their most at risk family, but even then most of those people will likely be in the best situation (rich vs. poor who are disproportionately affected, as in most things in life) to also have a relatively mild 'battle' with COVID.

 

[phisherman]

There are ways to lower the spread that doesn't involve a shut down but too many people politicize it and yell "muh rights!"

Has FIFA set any standards on procedures like mask wearing during these international breaks?

 

[East Coast Bias]

There are ways to lower the spread that doesn't involve a shut down but too many people politicize it and yell "muh rights!"

Has FIFA set any standards on procedures like mask wearing during these international breaks?

Yup. There’s ways to mitigate risk without scorching the earth. Anyone who says “well you just can’t shut down the world” is just too lazy to engage in a meaningful debate.

We know a bubble works. We know minimizing travel helps. These leagues just need to come around to the fact that their choices aren’t cancelled or act like nothing is happening. There’s a middle ground.

 

[maclean]

Yup. There’s ways to mitigate risk without scorching the earth. Anyone who says “well you just can’t shut down the world” is just too lazy to engage in a meaningful debate.

We know a bubble works. We know minimizing travel helps. These leagues just need to come around to the fact that their choices aren’t cancelled or act like nothing is happening. There’s a middle ground.

At the same time, when it comes to the government making decisions, it will generally go for the easy ones. Though there are ways to reduce the risk, sport is an easy target, and when you have high-profile players getting infected, it's unfortunately a logical one. Association officials were quite livid here however when the league just got cancelled, saying "why the **** are we testing like crazy if we're just going to get shut down anyway?" Unfortunately it's the same sentiment as a lot of restaurant owners here - they put in the effort to follow the guidelines, taking out tables, disinfecting, etc., only to be shut down anyhow because they're an easy target. To avoid the bad optics from the spring of people gathering on the street in front of bars drinking take-away beers, they've even banned alcohol consumption in public places, which honestly just means people will gather at private homes instead, creating a higher risk situation that is harder to monitor.