Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hela Wigmen

Players breaching C-19 protocols (Merged Threads)

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

12 positive at Hull and 0 positive at Salford. Common sense says the teams didn’t play each other when they were contaminated.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the vrius passes person to person les easily outdoors. Of course, the players from the opposing teams were in far closer contact than those maintaining a social distance outdoors.

But we simply don't have enough evidence at this stage to say for sure if the Hull players had the virus during the game or not... we may never know; but we cannot just assume they did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

But we simply don't have enough evidence at this stage to say for sure if the Hull players had the virus during the game or not... we may never know; but we cannot just assume they did not.

I actually know a colleague who has spent time as a research nurse in virology. I will ask their opinion. But, i am fairly comfortable that given the close bodily contact the players had, its fair to make such an assumption under those circumstances....

There really is enough evidence to form that hypothesis.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Equally we can’t assume it was picked up from a player visiting a hospital 

I agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I actually know a colleague who has spent time as a research nurse in virology. I will ask their opinion. But, i am fairly comfortable that given the close bodily contact the players had, its fair to make such an assumption under those circumstances....

There really is enough evidence to form that hypothesis.

 

If that is the case then why did we eliminate the scrum if close contact in the tackle was going to transmit the virus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

If that is the case then why did we eliminate the scrum if close contact in the tackle was going to transmit the virus?

Ask Sl for a definitive answer.

My guess is part of a risk assessment ...  i.e. eliminating the scrum reduces the risk, not eliminating it.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robin Evans said:

Ask Sl for a definitive answer.

My guess is part of a risk assessment ...  i.e. eliminating the scrum reduces the risk, not eliminating it.......

As I say. Note enough evidence to come to any conclusions yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

As I say. Note enough evidence to come to any conclusions yet.

I suspect a virologist may disagree. I've left a voicemail. I will advise accordingly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I suspect a virologist may disagree. I've left a voicemail. I will advise accordingly 

I will tell you what your virologist friend will say. That there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other if the Hull players had the virus during the game.

There have been over 21 million confirmed cases of this virus worldwide and we are still learning about it.  Scientists do not form conclusions on such small bodies of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One opinion from June (obviously football = the American version) 

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, cast doubt on football returning in 2020 without having all teams report to one solitary location.

“Unless players are essentially in a bubble — insulated from the community and they are tested every day — it would be very hard to see how football is able to be played this fall,” Fauci told CNN. “If there is a second wave, which is certainly a possibility and which could be complicated by the predictable flu season, football may not happen this year.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I will tell you what your virologist friend will say. That there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other if the Hull players had the virus during the game.

There have been over 21 million confirmed cases of this virus worldwide and we are still learning about it.  Scientists do not form conclusions on such small bodies of evidence.

It shouldn't be too hard to track the movements of the Hull players after the game and see who they came into contact with.

In fact this is the obvious thing to do but everyone seems more concerned with protecting Hull FC.

If the Hull players had the virus before the game they were putting the Salford guys in real danger. If they picked it up after the game well that would be even worse.

There has to be an enquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could have easily had one play on the team get it, several other pick it up from that player through extended close contact at training or just spending time together, but at the time of game the rest of the players who had it had not incubated it enough to be spreading it. And even if the original player was playing,  you're only ever within "close" contact with other for very brief instances, and not necessarily face to face, so a good (lucky!) Likelihood of not passing it on there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense would suggest that if a handful of Hull FC players have it but 0 Salford players have it then it is likely to have spread after the game. 

Makes you wonder why Pearson would put the hospital story out there. 

Or maybe not. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Common sense would suggest that if a handful of Hull FC players have it but 0 Salford players have it then it is likely to have spread after the game. 

Makes you wonder why Pearson would put the hospital story out there. 

Or maybe not. 

 

Still time for Salford players to show positive - 7 days since the game, incubation up to 14 days and for tests "to get the most accurate results, RT-PCR* tests should be conducted 8 days after suspected exposure or infection, to ensure that enough viral material is present to detect."   https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-accurate-are-covid-19-diagnostic-and-antibody-tests#Two-tests-that-diagnose-an-infection

*I believe it is this type of test carried out by Screen 4

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

It shouldn't be too hard to track the movements of the Hull players after the game and see who they came into contact with.

In fact this is the obvious thing to do but everyone seems more concerned with protecting Hull FC.

If the Hull players had the virus before the game they were putting the Salford guys in real danger. If they picked it up after the game well that would be even worse.

There has to be an enquiry.

I would hope that you're not suggesting that Hull FC took the field knowing that several players had Covid 19.

Unfortunately your post seems to be more concerned with putting my lot in a bad light than having anything constructive to say, although I agree that checking players' movements during that period is a good idea, albeit a bit obvious.

And I would certainly hope that an enquiry is well on the way.

 

 


                                                  "Son, can you play me a memory, I'm not really sure how it goes,

                                   but it's sad and it's sweet and I knew it complete, when I wore a younger man's clothes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 now infected.  This virus is very infectious, easy to transmit.  But 12 seems a large number.  Just when will FC play again?  How would games be caught up?  

Keep washing your hands everybody.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday testing alone without strict rules from the governing body isn't enough imo. 

Either tighten up the rules for players and club staff and/or test twice a week

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is the 12 from HFC, & zero from Salford, someone should be questioning the testing procedures.


Sex and Money are like Oxygen

They're not important until you're not getting enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bleep1673 said:

If it is the 12 from HFC, & zero from Salford, someone should be questioning the testing procedures.

Nah, it suggests that the first infection was after the game in a video review or training session or physio appointment that took place between the game finishing and the next round of testing.

Edit: that said some reports seem to say that there is an incubation period of a couple of days where the virus is not infectious to others.

Edited by Tommygilf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Nah, it suggests that the first infection was after the game in a video review or training session or physio appointment that took place between the game finishing and the next round of testing.

Edit: that said some reports seem to say that there is an incubation period of a couple of days where the virus is not infectious to others.

Incubation, on average 5-6 days, before symptom onset when it becomes the most contagious.  Work backwards from the positive testing confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Incubation, on average 5-6 days, before symptom onset when it becomes the most contagious.  Work backwards from the positive testing confirmation.

Yep, around 8 days from infection to testing (with the type being used) to have the best chance of not showing a 'false' negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Still time for Salford players to show positive - 7 days since the game, incubation up to 14 days and for tests "to get the most accurate results, RT-PCR* tests should be conducted 8 days after suspected exposure or infection, to ensure that enough viral material is present to detect."   https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-accurate-are-covid-19-diagnostic-and-antibody-tests#Two-tests-that-diagnose-an-infection

*I believe it is this type of test carried out by Screen 4

Yep, very good point, this week's test results for Salford will be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...