Just to be clear, I'm opposed to lockdowns and I don't want sport to stop. But if the measures we are under are justified then allowing sport to continue just makes a mockery of it in my eyes.
On the fence with this one. We're talking maybe 15,000 doses to get professional football in a state where it can continue indefinitely? 15,000 doses administered to the general public isn't going to get my business or anybody else's back up and running, but sometimes I feel like football is one of the few things keeping me sane! Obviously anybody who's high risk should be first in line, but I think a case can be made for keeping entertainment going next.
It would help with the mental health crisis that ten million people are struggling with..... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ggest-hit-mental-health-Second-World-War.html It's going to take a lot of people a bit of time to get back used to old life as current life is so different. Many will struggle to get back to the old routine. Football helps people escape so if there is something that can be done to keep it from being cancelled when we can't go to a pub or watch an event live then it should be looked in to.
I like going to gigs. Are you putting musicians, touring crew, venue owners on the list too. The whole notion is just daft. I get people enjoy football but there’s no justification to place it before anything else or above other sports or entertainment.
What if all professional footballers agreed to pay a weeks wages to have the vaccine? I’d let them jump the queue if they did that.
Well, live gigs would require the audience to be vaccinated as well. Streamed ones though, why not? Just before Xmas I paid for a ticket to a live streamed gig by a small band I like (I think they live together). If a handful of vaccinations would maybe allow other bands and their crew to do the same then yes, same principle.
Looks like it will be on skybet weren't taking bets on that game yesterday today skybet have added the game to the betting odds.
Do you have the next little bit please where the EFL said it can be nine days? The rules always seem to change based on what's convenient which is a weird when the virus couldn't care less whether there is a game on or not. They had better not be putting our players and staff at risk.
What a coincidence they have a lot of injuries and now a lot of coronavirus cases at exactly the same time
This isn't the one you mean but it's interesting. Pal warne: I was advised that if we did not play the game, there would be retribution because I am going against medical advice. The medical advice is that nine days isolation is enough as I have enough players in the football club to get the game on. I do not want it on or to put anyone at risk. But now it is on, there is little I can do but pick the lads up.
Or in other words can we re arrange and play barnsley when our injurys are back and we have strengthened in January..... possibly
The worst part is that a player tested positive but the squad didn't self isolate until later when 3 players had symptoms. If I was in an hairdressers and an employee tested positive I would be told to isolate by track and trace yet we've got a football club with a player testing positive and the rest of the squad who are in close contact daily carried on until a large group all came down with it. What the hell is going on?
Given that we have issued iFollow details, the EFL have in the past few days appointed officials for the game and not announcements other than business as usual info I assume everyone is expecting it on. Their last game was off with notice.
I thought that schools did send people home of someone catches it? Wasn't that why whole year groups are sent home? Or have I missed something?