Lighthouse

I think in the current climate teams will be looking at cheaper options and loans, so there will still be a market for those players, it’ll just be teams who might otherwise be aiming higher.

I can’t see any reason they can’t either be loaned out or find a space in the squad. It’s not going to be pretty but having the players I mentioned off the wage bill permanently (or at least our percentage of it) and finding a cheap RB might keep us on an even financial footing.

Christ, I agree with Turkish, I’m gong to go and have a lie down. The number of idiots I’ve seen slagging off the government because Boris didn’t make one simple, all-encompassing statement which perfectly explains every scenario 67 million people might find themselves in... "Oh we’ve been told to go to work but we shouldn’t go to work, what should I do?" Have you tried asking your boss, numb nuts?

Surely the damage wont be as bad as being relegated though. I know we'd get some wage cuts to help in that scenario but this situation should still be manageable. Don't spend anything on transfers, Long, Yoshi, Austin, Cedric and Clasie off the wage bill and we should save a bit of money.

That’s the point though, it’s the same logic. You take a number of cases, see what percentage dies and that gives you a ‘death ratio’ for that particular sample. I’ve yet to see any science which proves it’s 0.5%, just a varying number of A/B = C tests. What is the source for this 0.5%, out of interest.

That’s reverse engineering and uses an entirely faulty logic. You get the death rate by dividing number of confirmed deaths by the number of known cases and you get a rough estimate. This varies wildly from country to country as we simply have no idea how many people are infected and the difference between those who died from or with the disease. It’s currently 0.5% in Germany but in the USA it’s 6%. We simply don’t know. I disagree with your other point about getting a safe, low dosage in an open space like a park. You’re likening it too some kind of dodgy nuclear reactor, where you can calculate a safe amount of time at a certain distance to receive a low dose. It’s far more random than that; more akin to a minefield. You’re obviously less at risk the less time you spend in there but you can still take two steps in and get your arse blown off.

That's a very good point whelk.

I would think/hope that those 'difficulties' simply involve not paying such massive amounts for players in the summer. I can't see anyone getting close to administration over a few missed TV payments.

As with the whole football/hairdressers/B&Q thing you've clearly missed my point completely. Or you've chosen to or your pretending to because you like being sarcastic. In any case, never mind. You have a nice day, sir.

Haven’t got any kids. If I did I’d be sending them back to school in line with this timetable as their education would be very important. I wouldn’t however be sending them to the Wacky Warehouse for a birthday party.

That article states that as few as 1,000 viral particles could be needed to transmit the disease and that they could easily be transferred in one cough, sneeze, breath or touching of the face and eyes.

The longer you spend and the closer you are, the higher the risk of infection from airborne pathogens, that much is obvious. 2 metres and 15 are fairly arbitrary though. If someone has a big sneeze in Tesco, they could be three aisle over when someone else walks through the aerosols being churned around by the air con. Likewise if someone with the virus used my trolley half an hour ago, he could be 10 miles up the road and still pass it on to me. Guidance is about trying to mitigate the risks, it won’t stop them. You can pick it up walking past someone in the opposite direction outside, if you both happen to breath at the wrong time.

I just rewatched that clip as I wasn’t sure what it was actually trying to convey and as far as I can tell, those stats are actually complete b*llocks. That 66% isn’t people who are staying at home and self isolating, it’s people who actually live in their home. I.e. people not in prison, nursing homes or homeless. All those numbers actually show, if they are accurate, is that 66% of hospital admissions come from about 98% of the population. The most alarming number there is the 18% coming from nursing homes, which according to google only make up 0.4% of the US population. The safest places is the one where you will come into the least contact with the fewest number of people, which for most people is at home. This video is just pro-republican propaganda trying to convince people that this isn’t the case and we might as well carry on business as usual, using twisted and irrelevant stats. This is very interesting and contradicts every scientist and government adviser I’ve so far heard on the matter. What is the source of your information?

You believe after the last four months of all this, some players are unaware that the virus is contagious and can be deadly? However you do trust them to have a sudden epiphany and comply with a total isolation policy, if we let them play football again. I disagree.

Does this virus not kill people, or does social contact not spread it around? I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand where I’m going wrong.

What though? That isn’t a hypothesis. Anyone retired and/or elderly is going to be staying at home and not working. All those stats show is a roundabout way of saying the elderly and at risk are more likely to go to hospital, which we know already. You’re quoting Fox News, one of the most ridiculously biased pro-republican media outlets going. Even the anchor sounds like a snidey teenager.

There's a whole bunch of players who obviously aren't that bothered if they kill someone, so why they would be bothered if a bunch of fixtures are postponed for a club they're only at for the money, I don't know.

That’s not proof of anything. They may well have stayed at home but then the one time they went out to buy groceries they touched a door handle just after some guy who had a BBQ with 6 of his mates.

What do you mean, "You would rather"? There is no rather, they are going to do both. Just to be clear, I don’t want any unnecessary social contact until we’ve got the rates of infections and deaths significantly lower. Be that footballers, people in parks or otherwise. We are going to be forced to increase the risk in order to keep the country running. We will NEED to allow businesses to open sooner rather than later and that will increase infections. If anything that means we need to be even tighter in other areas and tougher on those breaking the rules.

Isolated between matches. Even with our supposed lockdown, there’s a list as long as my arm of players ignoring it. Grealish crashing his car at a mates house, players hanging out in parks, multiple offences by Arsenal players (despite Arteta having it), Kyle Walker is supposedly a repeat offender - having sex parties and visiting a variety of relatives. This is just the stuff papers know about, there’s probably five times as much we haven’t heard. You can test them as much as you want, it doesn’t mean jack if 10 minutes later they’re all round Vardy’s brother’s mate place, playing XBox and sh*gging hairdressers they’ve met on tinder. If you really want to compare it to B&Q, it is way, way more beneficial to society to open that than to play a few games of football. Not so much for the shoppers but the thousands of people they employ, who are currently being propped up by the tax payer. Football isn’t doing that, it provides light entertainment to a small minority. There is no need for any of their players or staff to be laid off.

New cases of Covid 19 registered yesterday: UK - 4,600 S. Korea - 12 I agree it’s definitely the way forward with football but it’s something to consider next season, in 3 months. Not this season in 3 weeks.

Lukaschenko is equally as nutty as the Brazilian guy and I doubt we will get anything close to an accurate death toll from them. Clearly the government was hoping to get away with a softer approach, a bit like Sweden and only toughened up when it became apparent that it wasn't going to work. Was it indecision or simply not wanting to overreact and damage the economy. Probably a bit of both but I can't be too mad at them wanting/hoping to keep things running. It's also worth pointing out that a large number of idiots in the general public made things worse. If it weren't for a bunch of clowns saying, "hey we're all furloughed and off work, lets get together for a BBQ," we'd probably be in less of a mess. Could they have been harder, with fewer deaths but worse damage to the economy? Yes. Would that have been right? F**k knows.

It's impossible to really make any fair comparisons between countries, there are just too many variables. However on the face of it the USA, Brazil, China and Belarus have all done a much worse job.

And start what? Reading blogs by conspiracy theorists. Millions already have in China.

I think anyone trying to buy us will likely be flying the Jolly Roger, so keep an eye out for a crew of scurvy buccaneers, making their way up the solent.