If your club played next weekend....

[Damien]

10 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Not sure how fit young RL players are at risk. I've had it (I'm a 41 year old not that fit man) and it was as bad as a moderate to bad cold

Actually there is plenty of evidence to say that elite sports people are more susceptible to illness like colds and flu. Covid-19 affects everyone differently and sports people with families and children would rightly be as concerned as anyone else.

[Harry Stottle]

13 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

If it was "safe" officially to go then yes. I'd expect a lower crowd as a lot of older fans or those in other high risk groups stayed away. I'd also think that in standing sections people would keep their distance.

And in what ordally manner would you expect they both enter and exit the ground, now be sensible in your answer Tommy.

[Harry Stottle]

The daftest thing the government have allowed in the restriction lifting is the ability to drive wherever you want to, there are coastal towns and beauty spots that have pleaded with the public not to travel to their districts/areas for fear of bringing the virus with them and leaving it there, the North West is one of the the areas of the country with an higer infection rate than most, do other regions want fans from this area visiting them, alternatively will fans want to travel to a recognised more contaminated area than their own?

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

And in what ordally manner would you expect they both enter and exit the ground, now be sensible in your answer Tommy.

Electronic turnstiles and distanced queues which isn't much different to before? If that were a problem add people with mobile phone scanners at other entry points. This is "the new normal" after all so game day expectations have to fit in to that. Same with all workplaces and leisure activities.

The only way this will get the official go ahead this year in the hypothetical situation posed is if the r rate is very low and therefore the risk of infection is low or we have a mass vaccine. Then its up to the individual to decide if they think its safe enough for them. I don't see what the problem is with that?

[DavidM]

Going back simply to the original question of if games were officially given the go ahead and you could go then would you .... yes .

[gingerjon]

It's even more hypothetical for me because there's no way I can get to Ealing but ...

If a match was being played next weekend that I could get to and it was the same as before the virus arrived (i.e. no rules in place whatsoever) then no, absolutely not.

If it was with a socially distanced and/or mask-wearing crowd with restrictions in place similar to what we're seeing in Taiwan, Korea etc ... not right now but maybe later in the year.

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's even more hypothetical for me because there's no way I can get to Ealing but ...

If a match was being played next weekend that I could get to and it was the same as before the virus arrived (i.e. no rules in place whatsoever) then no, absolutely not.

If it was with a socially distanced and/or mask-wearing crowd with restrictions in place similar to what we're seeing in Taiwan, Korea etc ... not right now but maybe later in the year.

I think that would be the response of many.

[JohnM]

26 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Going back simply to the original question of if games were officially given the go ahead and you could go then would you .... yes .

No. 

[DavidM]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If matches that we can all attend are returning next weekend then we can assume that any and all travel restrictions have also been lifted.

Exactly . I’m taking for granted that if we’ve reached that stage , we’ve advanced a fair way and the safety procedures and restrictions of ‘ the new normal ‘ everywhere are in place 

[Harry Stottle]

29 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Electronic turnstiles and distanced queues which isn't much different to before? If that were a problem add people with mobile phone scanners at other entry points. This is "the new normal" after all so game day expectations have to fit in to that. Same with all workplaces and leisure activities.

The only way this will get the official go ahead this year in the hypothetical situation posed is if the r rate is very low and therefore the risk of infection is low or we have a mass vaccine. Then its up to the individual to decide if they think its safe enough for them. I don't see what the problem is with that?

How long would you expect the distanced queues to extend? even 30 or so at a supermarket goes quite away back, you say it isn't very much different than before I say it is very different than before when people would be no further than a foot away - sorry 300mm - even less that that in the queue to gain entrance, Mobile phone scanners don't  you have to queue to the entry point to utilise them? and you haven't commented on exiting the ground.

In another thread I alluded to how would you get people into the seating areas considering there are long rows of seats, you can't ask someone to stand while you pass them there is just no room for the 2mtr exclusion zone, also If you were in the middle of a row and needed a comfort break the rest of the row up to the end would have to go also!

"New Normal" not yet it ain't.

I agree with the first part of your second paragraph, but considering the R rate has crept up ever so slightly since the lockdown was eased and the figures are not yet availble for the R figures post concessions being implemented also while there is no vaccine never mind a mass one avaiable no one will be having to make their own minds up for quite a while yet.

[TheReaper]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

you can't ask someone to stand while you pass them there is just no room for the 2mtr exclusion zone

The risks of transmission while briefly crossing each other is very low, especially with masks and a little effort to face away from each other. 

Eventually the guidelines will start to get more nuanced based the actual risks, and not the broad blanket approaches that were necessary when very little was known about how it spreads.

So we'll get to a stage where a stadium can be perhaps 1/4 full, with every other row empty and the remaining rows half-full. The majority of time spent in your seat, outdoors, will be very low risk, and the mechanics of passing by someone will be the same as it is the rest of the time outside the stadium, marginally higher but also very low risk.

[Bleep1673]

No, 350 miles separates us.

[DavidM]

We can’t wait for a vaccine . We’re just gonna have to learn to live with this and minimise the risks with safety procedures as best we can , but we can’t eradicate risks . It might be waiting for something that’ll never come 

[DavidM]

Just now, SL17 said:

Is “best we can” an answer to it ? No it’s not, but we have to do something to get out of the rut, I agree.

Indeed , best we can is all we got !

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, TheReaper said:

The risks of transmission while briefly crossing each other is very low, especially with masks and a little effort to face away from each other. 

Eventually the guidelines will start to get more nuanced based the actual risks, and not the broad blanket approaches that were necessary when very little was known about how it spreads.

So we'll get to a stage where a stadium can be perhaps 1/4 full, with every other row empty and the remaining rows half-full. The majority of time spent in your seat, outdoors, will be very low risk, and the mechanics of passing by someone will be the same as it is the rest of the time outside the stadium, marginally higher but also very low risk.

So why is it necessary then to have every other row empty and only a 1/4 of the stadium full if the risk is very low, and saying it will be the same but marginally higher than outside the stadium but we are still told to keep to the 2meter exclusion zone when ever we are near people from outside your own household.

Maybe you have missed the Grim bit out of your name and your after a few victim's.

[bobbruce]

20 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

So why is it necessary then to have every other row empty and only a 1/4 of the stadium full if the risk is very low, and saying it will be the same but marginally higher than outside the stadium but we are still told to keep to the 2meter exclusion zone when ever we are near people from outside your own household.

Maybe you have missed the Grim bit out of your name and your after a few victim's.

They also said people probably can’t keep to the 2m distancing in shops and on public transport. That’s why the government is advising face coverings in these situations. That’s then up to us as individuals whether we stick rigidly to the social distancing or follow the guidance to reduce risks as we enter each of the reducing lockdown stages. 

[TheReaper]

double post

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

[TheReaper]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

So why is it necessary then to have every other row empty and only a 1/4 of the stadium full if the risk is very low, and saying it will be the same but marginally higher than outside the stadium but we are still told to keep to the 2meter exclusion zone when ever we are near people from outside your own household.

Because when you spend a lot of time (ie most of the match) the risks increase as the likelihood of transmission increase. More opportunity for droplets from you cheering to make their way to someone in front of you. Most the localized outbreaks that aren't care homes are places like meat packing plants, postal sorting facilities, greenhouses with lots of workers etc. where people are in close quarters and for extended periods of time. So for that extended period of sitting in you seat, the additional space may be required to minimize that.

But when you pass by someone - on the sidewalk, or heading to the pisser - the time exposure is very low, and that makes the risk very low. A strict, 100%-all-the-time 2m distance will not have an appreciably larger effect on reducing transmission than having a mask on and being quick. 

All that is my understanding of various articles and reports I've been reading. I could be wrong, they could be wrong, who knows. But it makes sense to me and I think they'll be able to manage some sort of solution with a partial-full stadium. Possibly with non or reduced concession stands, organized bathroom flows etc.  

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Maybe you have missed the Grim bit out of your name and your after a few victim's.

Do a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life  

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

On 16/05/2020 at 23:26, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Not sure how fit young RL players are at risk. I've had it (I'm a 41 year old not that fit man) and it was as bad as a moderate to bad cold

Well, you can count yourself lucky as quite a few in your position will have a far worse experience followed with major long term issues.

[Just Browny]

On 16/05/2020 at 21:03, moorside roughyed said:

I'm an Oldham fan so social distancing wouldn't be a problem.

If we re-start behind closed doors , I wonder if we could use stock crowd backgrounds from recent SL at all-seater football grounds (I won't name the clubs) to make it look less empty but socially-distanced.

16 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Not personally but up until recently in my semi-rural area with traffic low you get a lot of drivers who obviously dreamt of being Jensen Button or Lewis Hamilton....

Just as a matter of fact,  Road casualities in GB in the 12 months up to June 2019 were:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-provisional-estimates-year-ending-june-2019

Does not stop people driving to matches though and nor should it.

So fewer deaths in a 12-month period than COVID19 has notched up in the last 8 weeks? Not sure quoting the figures has helped your argument here.

[bobbruce]

4 hours ago, Just Browny said:

If we re-start behind closed doors , I wonder if we could use stock crowd backgrounds from recent SL at all-seater football grounds (I won't name the clubs) to make it look less empty but socially-distanced.

So fewer deaths in a 12-month period than COVID19 has notched up in the last 8 weeks? Not sure quoting the figures has helped your argument here.

Plus there are probably very few road and work deaths under lockdown. So when we look back at this year coronavirus is likely to be responsible for more deaths than simply the difference between this year and the five year average. 

[Hela Wigmen]

I’d love to go a live game. I miss it. I miss live Rugby League games on Sky too. I know they’re trying to fill the void and I appreciate that they are with games from the past but it’s not the same. 

Would I actually go to a game though? I’m not sure, as much as I miss it, I’d need to be convinced, I think, that there’s proper safety precautions and/or the risk to myself and others is very small. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 hours ago, Ash Hope said:

Point well argued. I just think there's bigger things than Rugby League 

I think that's given, however, this is a forum dedicated to Rugby League, saying we shouldn't discuss something Rugby League related however hypothetical seems a tad strange to me.

[Jimbo78]

I'd go providing that the entire stadium was being utilised. At Newcastle Thunder we have a capacity of 10,500 and an average gate of just over 1,000 so provided that all 4 stands were open I'm confident that me and my family would be able to keep our distance from other spectators.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

14 hours ago, Just Browny said:

So fewer deaths in a 12-month period than COVID19 has notched up in the last 8 weeks? Not sure quoting the figures has helped your argument here.

All things are relative, my point being there is an element in risk in everything we do .

If you want another example, try Hong Kong flu killed 80,000 in the UK in 1968-689 when I was in my infancy. Not that I would remember a great deal but according to my 86 year old mother the country never shut down then.

So in response to the OP I would definately go if spectators were allowed in.