Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tommygilf

Two More players test positive

Recommended Posts

Warrington, despite six players having to isolate, are willing to play their game “for the betterment of the competition”. Very commendable and a very good thing to do at a time they could have been selfish and postponed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LeeF said:

No it’s not that simple. The game is testing 100% of players every week as a minimum. The percentage being tested across the country is a minute fraction of that

That's not the point though.  The nationwide testing suggests that approx 0.04% of the population has it.  That is a tiny percentage and is not the actual % that have tested positive it is the total estimate of people that have it based on testing.  The amount of RL players who have it seems to far far exceed this number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a surprise, a shock or unexpected. Nor will the many more that will happen either!

 

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tre Cool said:

That's not the point though.  The nationwide testing suggests that approx 0.04% of the population has it.  That is a tiny percentage and is not the actual % that have tested positive it is the total estimate of people that have it based on testing.  The amount of RL players who have it seems to far far exceed this number.

Is that 0.04% of the folk being tested or 0.04% of the UK population ?

Most folk haven't had a test.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Warrington, despite six players having to isolate, are willing to play their game “for the betterment of the competition”. Very commendable and a very good thing to do at a time they could have been selfish and postponed. 

I think providing they can have a high level of confidence of safety, this needs to be the approach, even if we are loaning players at short notice, although that may cause problems with Covid measures too. 

Getting the season done is obviously the aim, results are less important. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Griff said:

Is that 0.04% of the folk being tested or 0.04% of the UK population ?

Most folk haven't had a test.

0.04% based on the people who have been tested extrapolated to the entire population I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anonymouse said:

 

Lockdown has shown psychological effects , mental health issues , after long periods in some people , keeping players and their families in extended lockdown for what would be from March until October or whenever is a big ask with potential serious issues evolving 

They would be in a large bubble with their playing colleagues and family's though. It also safeguards their livlihoods

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Griff said:

Is that 0.04% of the folk being tested or 0.04% of the UK population ?

Most folk haven't had a test.

Total population

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Griff said:

Is that 0.04% of the folk being tested or 0.04% of the UK population ?

Most folk haven't had a test.

During the most recent week of the study*, we estimate that 28,200 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% credible interval: 20,100 to 37,900)2. This equates to 0.05% (95% credible interval: 0.04% to 0.07%) of the population in England or around 1 in 1,900 people (95% credible interval: 1 in 2,700 to 1 in 1,400). This is based on statistical modelling of the trend in rates of positive nose and throat swab results.

*14-20th Aug

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/englandandwales28august2020 

Based on those numbers you'd expect less than 1 case across both the whole player cohort and the 910 or so reportedly tested in week 1 (obviously no allowance for regional variations).

Edited by Les Tonks Sidestep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably doesn't help that most of the players will live in areas where cases are fairly high, i.e. across West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tre Cool said:

That's not the point though.  The nationwide testing suggests that approx 0.04% of the population has it.  That is a tiny percentage and is not the actual % that have tested positive it is the total estimate of people that have it based on testing.  The amount of RL players who have it seems to far far exceed this number.

I do not agree with that.  The Welcome Trust have suggested a figure of 13% for those who have contracted the virus.

I strongly suggest that using your figure is spurious and no way a justification for discussing our current predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Based on those numbers you'd expect less than 1 case across both the whole player cohort and the 910 or so reportedly tested in week 1 (obviously no allowance for regional variations).

OK - well, seeing as we've got more positive cases than that, I would suggest to you that these estimates lack credibility.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I do not agree with that.  The Welcome Trust have suggested a figure of 13% for those who have contracted the virus.

I strongly suggest that using your figure is spurious and no way a justification for discussing our current predicament.

People who have the virus right now. Not who have ever had it.  This isn't that hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Griff said:

OK - well, seeing as we've got more positive cases than that, I would suggest to you that these estimates lack credibility.

Or we have a badly managed sport making a complete mess of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, wilsontown said:

It probably doesn't help that most of the players will live in areas where cases are fairly high, i.e. across West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.

Yes. This was a point made earlier. And highlights that we probably needed to have a tougher regime in place simply because the community risk was greater than if you'd all come down to sunny East Sussex for a few weeks.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes. This was a point made earlier. And highlights that we probably needed to have a tougher regime in place simply because the community risk was greater than if you'd all come down to sunny East Sussex for a few weeks.

In all seriousness we should have decamped to Center Parcs like how american sports have gone to disney world, though knowing RL it would end up being a windswept throwback to the 1970s caravan park 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Griff said:

OK - well, seeing as we've got more positive cases than that, I would suggest to you that these estimates lack credibility.

And I'd suggest that you'd be wrong. The players and staff are not random samples of the population but a very specific higher than average risk group within it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

All of those are speculative however and what the higher ups at Clubs, SL and the RFL need to work out is how the virus is being picked up despite their measures.

How it is picked up is one thing,  but I can tell you exactly how it can be transmitted during a RL game, but I don't need to spell it out do I Tommy.

I for example go for a pint a couple of times a week and there would be 10 of us under normal circumstances sat around a single table, that has been shelved for now and we sit 4 at a table under the guidelines, now if we were on a rugby field any guidelines remotely like the general public has to adhere to has been bypassed e.g. we could wrestle with each other, perform gang bear hugs, breath cough and splutter well within the social distancing measures, most probably fall onto or put our hands into someone else's spittle on the ground and a host of other things that would help us to get contaminated.

Very careful consideration should be made as to whether to abandon the season, but I fear if reports are coming out each week of infections at different clubs and subsequently matches keep being cancelled it could very well sway in that direction.

Edited by Harry Stottle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

And I'd suggest that you'd be wrong. The players and staff are not random samples of the population but a very specific higher than average risk group within it.

Then I'd suggest you shouldn't be applying an average to a group which you know has a higher than average risk.

However you argue the case, the fact is that the truth doesn't agree with the prediction.  Something's not working.


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Warrington, despite six players having to isolate, are willing to play their game “for the betterment of the competition”. Very commendable and a very good thing to do at a time they could have been selfish and postponed. 

 I think it is more a determination to benefit from,and not lose,monies from the broadcast deal.

 Could be touch and go between now and the end of the campaign.

https://media.sportbusiness.com/news/sky-rfl-strike-super-league-payments-deal/#:~:text=UK pay-television broadcaster Sky,to the Covid-19 pandemic.


     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

How it is picked up is one thing,  but I can tell you exactly how it can be transmitted during a RL game, but I don't need to spell it out do I Tommy.

I for example go for a pint a couple of times a week and there would be 10 of us under normal circumstances sat around a single table, that has been shelved for now and we sit 4 at a table under the guidelines, now if we were on a rugby field any guidelines remotely like the general public has to adhere to has been bypassed e.g. we could wrestle with each other, perform gang bear hugs, breath cough and splutter well within the social distancing measures, most probably fall onto or put our hands into someone else's spittle on the ground and a host of other things that would help us to get contaminated.

Very careful consideration should be made as to whether to abandon the season, but I fear if reports are coming out each week of infections at different clubs and subsequently matches keep being cancelled it could very well sway in that direction.

Absolutely H, but we have touch wood no cases of the virus being transmitted from one team to another during a game; that's despite having a high number of positive test results. That suggests the games aren't currently the problem, but that the rest of the week possibly including training is the point of transmission.

To me there should be testing done after the game, relatively close before it, and during the week in training as we have now. That way we can say as close as possible for certain that no player with the virus played in a fixture (or did if it occurs). In that scenario there's no/less need for Warrington or before them Salford to wholly or partially self-isolate. This means the league is impacted less and we can carry on with minimal disruption.

I think the pub example you highlight is a good one as well. For you and I, that is an acceptable risk, but for a player or club staff member, I really don't think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Absolutely H, but we have touch wood no cases of the virus being transmitted from one team to another during a game; that's despite having a high number of positive test results.

How do we know that ?


"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Griff said:

How do we know that ?

Because no Salford players tested positive after the Hull game, or Wire after the Wakefield one, or Wakefield after the Catalans game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tre Cool said:

People who have the virus right now. Not who have ever had it.  This isn't that hard to understand.

And how do we keep it that way?  By ignoring the issues that caused it to rise in the first place?  Err... no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...