egg

Spot on. Giving Liverpool the title means picking other winners and losers when nothing has been mathematically decided. End it here and start next season as near to the usual start date as is safe.

As I've said, I have no idea on the numbers that will get it. It's the government that have thrown out the 60% of the population figure for herd immunisation. Merkel has speculated that a higher figure of Germans could it. Its been said that 1 in 5 will get seriously ill. The number that will die, will depend on the number that are get it and that comes down to government policy. We're using a different approach to others and I don't mind admitting I think it's stupid.

I hope you're right, but the response of Western governments suggests otherwise. For every person fearing armageddon, there are several more in the "it's just a cold" and "flu kills more, so what's all the fuss" camps. The truth is China have suppressed this and conducted mass testing. When they come fully out of lock down, who knows what will happen but if it means another spike, at least the suppression period has given teh medics time to traleat. We've done neither of those and whilst I'm no medic or expert, common sense tells me that our policy of limited testing and minimal suppression is bound to lead to mass spread, thus mass impact on the NHS, and a high death count. I've no idea where you plucked the 300k death figure from, but this isn't a subject to be falsely attributing comments to people - if you must post in that style, do it on irrelevant stuff like football.

Maths, statistics, everything bar infectious disease I think. That said, if our approach is correct, everyone else has got it wrong.

I think it's the whole herd immunity point. Perception amongst some is that if 60% need to get it in order to achieve herd immunity, then some assume that 60% will get it. That's 40m or so. If the maths work back from that and 1 in 5 will get properly ill, and using Italian death rates, then it's carnage. The issue though is how many of us will get it. If it is mega numbers, the death rate will be much higher as there'll be less beds and ventilators etc. My personal view is that our approach will inevitably lead to widespread infection and a high death count. How many, no idea, but it won't be pretty.

There's some logic to that. My thoughts are that a compressed season won't wash because of the need for games for TV contracts. Its an interesting approach though, and I guess what's the lesser of 2 evils from a legal perspective - risking litigation by abandoning this season, or finishing it as soon as it can safely happen and fudging next season. On balance I think abandoning this season and starting the 2020 / 2021 as near to the usual time, and using the laid out framework if possible, is less risky.

The 2nd chart is reassuring to an extent. The bottom chart is pretty irrelevant though as those other diseases are well established but this one still growing. There'll be loads of people still ill and/or on ventilators that may not make it. Moreover, the disease is growing in its spread and until it peaks, and cases have run their course, any stats about the number of deaths is premature. Bottom chart, 3rd line down. Pneumonia. That's the complication of this disease. Pneumonia itself isn't contagious, but this disease is highly contagious, and in some cases can lead to pneumonia. Just imagine where pneumonia would be on that list if it, in itself, was a contagious air born virus? The answer is top, by a distance. Putting charts to one side, the biggest indicator of the seriousness is worldwide government and WHO reaction. Countries and borders don't just close down.

Thank you, a good read. I think the blasé attitude some are showing to an extent comes from a lack of clear information, but sometimes sheer bloody mindedness and a refusal to acknowledge the reality of how serious this stuff is. My folks are both mid 70's with acute lung conditions. They think this is 'just a cold' and that they everyone is overreacting and should crack on as normal. They can't understand that if they get it they won't be a priority for medical attention. Footballers are young, fit and healthy but still susceptible to this. Moreover, their folks, grandparents and others will be potentially more susceptible and anyone can pass this thing on without realising they have it. Pushing 22 players into close contact, in 46 league games, exposes them and hundreds of others in their lives. I'm amazed that people can't see the risk.

Never before has a player become a £60m+ superstar whilst injured. He's decent and a big part of our team but a bit of perspective is needed.

Supernatural

Do you really believe that RH and the board don't talk about these things? Of course they do. RH will know the state of our finances, and whether there is a need to sell to fund an incoming player. None of us know what happened in the window. It's possible that a permanent sale may have been close with those monies / saved wages used to fund the signing RH wanted. I was given good info that the club wanted to sell Adams to Leeds and bring in a loan from Arsenal, I suspect Nketiah. That didn't happen and may be why the incoming player didn't happen. Who knows. Regardless of what happened, Ralph will have known what was happening.

Button

I suspect they did but as the sales didn't happen, neither did the incoming players.

Sure we've cleared some, but not enough and more need selling or releasing - that's bloody obvious from the state of our finances.

Thank you for that. It makes sense, but wouldn't that model make sense with mass testing so those who have had it are aware that they have, thus probably have immunity? Currently we don't know who's carrying, clean or likely to have immunity.

We haven't cleared many off. They're on loan. We probably pay a huge chunk of their wages. That's been known, hence some people stating the obvious, namely that we can't bring in more players. We need to shift those on permanent contracts and rebuild with the resources that leaves us with.

Backhanders to get business probably is to an extent, but it's not paying off officials to turn a blind eye to something illegal or something akin to that, ie corruption proper. The truth is that we don't know the extent of what he's been doing, but, if it's business related in China its not the ridiculous assassination or international money laundering suggestion that was thrown out there.

No you can't and unless they've been in contact with a confirmed sufferer they can't be tested either. It's ridiculous and how anyone can think this approach reduces the risk of spread is beyond me.

Instead he delivered 5 burdens in the form of Hoedt, Vestergaard, Ely, Lemina and Carillo.

That's nuts. He didn't do much and did it badly. The money we've wasted is scandalous. Any idea what Les was earning?

I'd prefer to see the whole accounts rather than a couple of headlines. Got a link? Accounts aren't yet available from companies house. A loss ain't new though, the last accounts showed an operational loss but if you're info is correct, hopefully people will understand why we couldn't sign more players.

Fair point.

Brighton v Arsenal off. Sensible.

That may be so, but when we hear that 10,000 people probably have it, it's obvious that not enough people have been tested. Take Tom Hanks as an example, if he called 111 over here he probably wouldn't have met the criteria to be tested. He'd potentially have gone about his life passing it on. If he hadn't tested positive, anyone coming into contact with him who displayed symptoms wouldn't be tested either.

Absolutely. The lack of testing here is scary - we can display symptoms but not get tested cos we haven't been in contact with someone who's tested positive. Problem is that person wouldn't have tested positive cos he/she hasn't been tested, cos he/she hasn't been in contact with someone who's tested positive!