It's a bit like calling off a game for bad weather though. There really is no point when the game is certain to be played, although you might be "lucky" to have the postponement announced before you start travelling.
Not sure what the football authorities are supposed to do. Unless you want them to cancel all fixture until some random date in the future.
Having said the above, as a travelling fan you're always bitterly disappointed to have a match called off especially if you're already enroute.
Let's just hope we don't have to experience this anytime soon!
Clubs should have to do their tests and declare their results at least a few hours before kick-off. Games get called off too late for bad weather too - fans come last as usual.
Also, not saying it's happened in the Blackburn - Hull case cause idk, but there needs to be a minimum % of absentees due to Covid for a game to be called off imo - if you drop below 14 players because of one Covid case + 10 injuries, is that reasonable grounds for postponement? Not for me.
Something like 25% of players unavailable should be due to Covid imo - and unvaccinated cases shouldn't count imo, although that would never get through.
I suppose it's difficult to get that perfect time between early enough to give enough notice of games being called off, but late enough for it to be the most up to date result.
But calling a game off 2hours or so before kick off is beyond a joke.
It seems that vaccinations offer limited protection against getting infected with the new variant. In light of this maybe those who don't wear decent quality masks in enclosed areas eg the concourse, bars etc should be subject to similar vitriol to the non-vaccinated and those that have concerns about being vaccinated.
As for masks, there's nothing which says which type you have to wear - so people are only following the guidance and trying to do the right thing. The same cannot be said of the unvaccinated. Absolutely stupid comparison.
@ReturnToSenda said:
As for masks, there's nothing which says which type you have to wear - so people are only following the guidance and trying to do the right thing. The same cannot be said of the unvaccinated. Absolutely stupid comparison.
Personally I think preventing transmission of the virus to the vulnerable is of paramount importance. Good quality masks (google it) are probably an important way of doing this. Definitely linked subjects.
I’ve stayed out of this debate as it can get quite political and extreme. I work in the Pharmaceutical industry and actually work for a company directly involved in the development of some of the main vaccines approved for use. I am a scientist and have absolute clarity on the importance of vaccines, and how they have played vital roles in historically eradicating certain diseases, as well as reducing much suffering, morbidity and mortality.
But not withstanding the above information, the bottom line is that as an adult in a free society, you simply cannot mandate a vaccination (Vaccination for children in diseases with a higher risk of morbidity/mortality against balanced against a more understood/utilised vaccine is completely different). The vaccine DOES reduce the chances of contracting the virus, albeit in a less marked manner with Omicron, but it does reduce the chances of contracting the virus, and once infected, has been shown to reduce the individual’s viral load and thus ability for onward transmission of the virus. BUT, as is quite obviously shown by this new wave of Omicron (where the sheer level of transmissibility of the virus on a population level outweighs comfortably any transmission reduction on an individual basis provided by vaccination), the main protective factor of vaccination currently is on a personal basis. So, should an individual choose not to be vaccinated that is now largely a personal choice with personal implications - it does have group or population implications, but less so than with the original strain, Alpha and Delta variants (this balance will shift again with Omicron specific vaccines next year). Regardless though, I have chosen to be vaccinated as much from a population perspective as from a personal view, but if someone else chooses differently then that is there choice in a free world, just as it was for decades where individuals chose to smoke and effect their health and others around them.
With regards to masks, for me this is a different matter and is simple common sense. It does not cost the wearer anything as an individual (unless with a medical condition which makes it difficult to breathe) so is rightly mandated. I cannot see any difference between being asked to wear a mask as opposed to wearing other clothing. As for which type of masks are best, this is actually widely researched now and the information is there to see and make a choice about. Masks are primarily a tool to protect others and reduce the amount of virus you expel should you be infected. Different masks will reduce this amount to varying levels but all will have an effect. Additionally, although masks generally will not stop you becoming infected they will reduce the vital inoculum (dose) you are exposed to so likely have a positive impact on how ill you may become. FFP2 (N95) and FFP3 masks are the highest quality masks (cloth the lowest) but these are not cheap and not everyone can afford these on an ongoing basis.
Well said @Quarterman and thanks for all the work everyone in the industry puts in ! I also know a scientist who has been involved since the start and I find it incredible that people still can't trust the these people that are trying to help us, now and in the future. I had a discussion with a young lad at work before Xmas who didn't want to take the vaccine as he doesn't trust it, I asked him if he'd ever had polio or rubella ? When he said no i just replied well that's because you had a vaccine for it when you were younger
@HolmerBlue said:
I had a discussion with a young lad at work before Xmas who didn't want to take the vaccine as he doesn't trust it, I asked him if he'd ever had polio or rubella ? When he said no i just replied well that's because you had a vaccine for it when you were younger
I certainly can’t take any credit personally as I work in Oncology trials rather than Vaccine trials, but I can attest to the sheer amount of work involved in the development/trial process. The complexity of the scientific work, the Regulatory and ethical concerns and implications of the work, and the intricacies involved in clinical trials are still mind boggling at times (even after 15 years in the industry) and anyone that questions the fact the vaccine approvals were in any way rushed are completely ignorant of the facts. As a part of my role I often sit in on calls with the Physicians at the Pharmaceutical companies involved in monitoring trials from a safety aspect and their intelligence, thoroughness and integrity is quite humbling and awe inspiring. I might consider myself a reasonably intelligent bloke but these men and women are absolutely on a different level and pretty unbelievable. New drugs will always cause adverse reactions alongside the good they do, but never question the integrity of the people involved in the drug development itself. Pharmaceutical companies themselves, once they have an approved drug, are a business like any other and need to make money in order to drive the development of other novel drugs. No profit means no development, and there always will be discussion about that aspect of the industry. But given it takes several billion pounds to develop any one successful drug (including development of unsuccessful drugs, which make i the vast majority) and once approved you may only be able to sell that drug for 5 or 6 years before it’s patent expires (20 year patent, could be 10-15 years in development) it’s simple economics to understand the requirement to sell that drug at a price.
Fascinating reading @Quarterman which has only cemented my uneducated opinion. Clear, easy to understand & thorough.
@HolmerBlue A point I often mention using the exact same words. Usual response is well those vaccines were not rushed through or still waiting for the long term effects 1st.
Well as a nation there must have been about 100 million jabs issued so far, which to my mind makes for a pretty large clinical trial. As for the long term effects, if we all waited that long I have doubts that there would be many left to benefit.
My guess would be that we have some players who are reluctant to be vaccinated (which in my view is not the same as being anti-vax).
This would potentially make it difficult for the club to make too much noise about vaccination although I agree with pretty much
I’m not sure that insisting that a player is vaccinated to continue to work is currently either legally or morally the right thing to do> @ReturnToSenda said:
The vaccine reduces the likelihood of serious illness. Where did people get this idea that it prevents transmission from?
Depressingly it is a fairly common misconception In my experience (although the latest variant does seem to have made the penny drop with a lot of people). People genuinely seemed to think that if they’d been double-jabbed they couldn’t catch it or pass it on.
We seem to live in a world where If something can’t be easily said and understood in a three word phrase a lot of people won’t get the message.*
Thanks @Quarterman. Interesting reading and valuable clarification of what masks, vaccines etc can or cannot do. I was interested also in @HolmerBlue’s reference to vaccines for polio and rubella. I believe the rubella one is part of the MMR vaccine for infants/young children which also covers mumps and measles. I remember polio being endemic in the late ‘forties/early ‘fifties but I didn’t realise that a vaccine against it was still being administered or at least as recently as when @HolmerBlue’s young colleague was a boy.
On the question of masks, I use the basic disposable blue and white ones. Early on in the pandemic I was told that they could be re-used after three days if kept ‘in a clean environment’. I keep mine in individual quart sized ziplock bags. I would welcome confirmation, @Quarterman, that I was correctly advised.
Hi @micra The advice on re-using masks can be a bit different depending on who you speak with and your risk. For example, I only use cloth masks and wash them regularly, as I’m sure many do. In your situation, your risk is higher and I think using a surgical or N95 mask makes sense, but as N95 are very expensive surgical masks are a good option.
I believe you are talking about surgical masks in your message above. If you are, these are better than cloth masks as they have additional filtration so are a safer choice. If you are re-using masks I would say the following.
if a mask is heavily contaminated, throw it away and don’t use again.
when you use a mask, take it off and place in a paper envelope if you can, not plastic (the virus lives significantly less time on paper, and will dry better).
place in direct sunlight, or on a radiator (or both). The mask will definitely be ok to re-use after 7 days, but would most likely be completely decontaminated after 4 days.
masks can be re-used on a loop for up to 6 months like this, but I’d change every 3 months.
if in a rush for a mask, you can sterilise masks in the oven, 70 degrees Celsius for 45 minutes. This can only be done 5 times before the mask starts to lose function.
Hope that helps!
PS - up watching the cricket so decided to take my mind off it to write this message!
I see reports that the French are changing their rules from Jan 25th, so that all professional sports player must be fully vaccinated to continue playing. Previously they have permitted a recent negative Covid test as an alternative to full vaccination.
It's the same stance as the French have taken in other sectors it seems. Also reported that >3000 care workers were suspended back in September (?) for not being fully vaccinated.
Personally, I think we would now be seeing the benefit if this rule had been applied in the UK.
The vaccine reduces the likelihood of serious illness. Where did people get this idea that it prevents transmission from?
Depressingly it is a fairly common misconception In my experience (although the latest variant does seem to have made the penny drop with a lot of people). People genuinely seemed to think that if they’d been double-jabbed they couldn’t catch it or pass it on.
We seem to live in a world where If something can’t be easily said and understood in a three word phrase a lot of people won’t get the message.*
EGs: From submissions by state lawyer to American appellate court hearing case about state vaccination mandate:
“It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” (https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/vaccine-mandates-take-center-stage-at-u-s-supreme-court/)
Anthony Fauci:
"...If you do get infected...the chances are very likely that you'll not be able to transmit it to other people..." (1min 40s @
@Quarterman said:
Hi @micra The advice on re-using masks can be a bit different depending on who you speak with and your risk. For example, I only use cloth masks and wash them regularly, as I’m sure many do. In your situation, your risk is higher and I think using a surgical or N95 mask makes sense, but as N95 are very expensive surgical masks are a good option.
I believe you are talking about surgical masks in your message above. If you are, these are better than cloth masks as they have additional filtration so are a safer choice. If you are re-using masks I would say the following.
if a mask is heavily contaminated, throw it away and don’t use again.
when you use a mask, take it off and place in a paper envelope if you can, not plastic (the virus lives significantly less time on paper, and will dry better).
place in direct sunlight, or on a radiator (or both). The mask will definitely be ok to re-use after 7 days, but would most likely be completely decontaminated after 4 days.
masks can be re-used on a loop for up to 6 months like this, but I’d change every 3 months.
if in a rush for a mask, you can sterilise masks in the oven, 70 degrees Celsius for 45 minutes. This can only be done 5 times before the mask starts to lose function.
Hope that helps!
PS - up watching the cricket so decided to take my mind off it to write this message!
Evening/morning @Quarterman. Read your helpful post re masks this morning but have only just got round to thanking you.
On the point about longevity of viruses on particular surfaces, I remember reading years ago an article about the practice of covering toilet seats with toilet paper in public conveniences. The writer maintained that viruses have greater difficulty adhering to hard shiny surfaces than they do to paper. On that basis, I assumed that ziplock bags were preferable to paper bags for quarantining the disposable blue and white masks. I’ve stayed clear so far but perhaps I have just been lucky.
Hi @micra, no worries at all. Viruses will always survive on non-porous hard surfaces (plastics etc) for longer than paper or card etc. Honestly though, these tests are always done in perfect conditions and viruses generally do not live for anywhere near as long in the real world as the lab tests suggests (think of mpg advertised for cars are never what you actually get in reality). Additionally, this virus is primarily transmitted via the airborne route, rather than through contaminated objects (fomites), so I wouldn’t suggest you’ve been lucky. It sounds like you take additional care when compared to the average individual, thus your level of protection will be higher - long may it continue :-)
Comments
There doesn't seem to be any kind of cut-off time for test results - or if there is, it's too late. Things can't go on like this.
It's a bit like calling off a game for bad weather though. There really is no point when the game is certain to be played, although you might be "lucky" to have the postponement announced before you start travelling.
Not sure what the football authorities are supposed to do. Unless you want them to cancel all fixture until some random date in the future.
Having said the above, as a travelling fan you're always bitterly disappointed to have a match called off especially if you're already enroute.
Let's just hope we don't have to experience this anytime soon!
Clubs should have to do their tests and declare their results at least a few hours before kick-off. Games get called off too late for bad weather too - fans come last as usual.
Also, not saying it's happened in the Blackburn - Hull case cause idk, but there needs to be a minimum % of absentees due to Covid for a game to be called off imo - if you drop below 14 players because of one Covid case + 10 injuries, is that reasonable grounds for postponement? Not for me.
Something like 25% of players unavailable should be due to Covid imo - and unvaccinated cases shouldn't count imo, although that would never get through.
I suppose it's difficult to get that perfect time between early enough to give enough notice of games being called off, but late enough for it to be the most up to date result.
But calling a game off 2hours or so before kick off is beyond a joke.
Absolutely no excuse for it
Statement from AFC Wimbledon urging the EFL (and other clubs) to get their act together: https://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/news/2021/december/club-statement2/
I would hope that as a club we fully endorse AFC Wimbledons stance.
It seems that vaccinations offer limited protection against getting infected with the new variant. In light of this maybe those who don't wear decent quality masks in enclosed areas eg the concourse, bars etc should be subject to similar vitriol to the non-vaccinated and those that have concerns about being vaccinated.
The vaccine reduces the likelihood of serious illness. Where did people get this idea that it prevents transmission from?
As for masks, there's nothing which says which type you have to wear - so people are only following the guidance and trying to do the right thing. The same cannot be said of the unvaccinated. Absolutely stupid comparison.
Personally I think preventing transmission of the virus to the vulnerable is of paramount importance. Good quality masks (google it) are probably an important way of doing this. Definitely linked subjects.
With Delta there was evidence that it reduced the frequency of transmission.
Yeah, as there is with Omicron even if it that reduction is more slight. But the main point is it keeps people out of hospital.
As for FFP2 masks, they're bloody expensive and only single-use - can't expect everyone to wear those.
I’ve stayed out of this debate as it can get quite political and extreme. I work in the Pharmaceutical industry and actually work for a company directly involved in the development of some of the main vaccines approved for use. I am a scientist and have absolute clarity on the importance of vaccines, and how they have played vital roles in historically eradicating certain diseases, as well as reducing much suffering, morbidity and mortality.
But not withstanding the above information, the bottom line is that as an adult in a free society, you simply cannot mandate a vaccination (Vaccination for children in diseases with a higher risk of morbidity/mortality against balanced against a more understood/utilised vaccine is completely different). The vaccine DOES reduce the chances of contracting the virus, albeit in a less marked manner with Omicron, but it does reduce the chances of contracting the virus, and once infected, has been shown to reduce the individual’s viral load and thus ability for onward transmission of the virus. BUT, as is quite obviously shown by this new wave of Omicron (where the sheer level of transmissibility of the virus on a population level outweighs comfortably any transmission reduction on an individual basis provided by vaccination), the main protective factor of vaccination currently is on a personal basis. So, should an individual choose not to be vaccinated that is now largely a personal choice with personal implications - it does have group or population implications, but less so than with the original strain, Alpha and Delta variants (this balance will shift again with Omicron specific vaccines next year). Regardless though, I have chosen to be vaccinated as much from a population perspective as from a personal view, but if someone else chooses differently then that is there choice in a free world, just as it was for decades where individuals chose to smoke and effect their health and others around them.
With regards to masks, for me this is a different matter and is simple common sense. It does not cost the wearer anything as an individual (unless with a medical condition which makes it difficult to breathe) so is rightly mandated. I cannot see any difference between being asked to wear a mask as opposed to wearing other clothing. As for which type of masks are best, this is actually widely researched now and the information is there to see and make a choice about. Masks are primarily a tool to protect others and reduce the amount of virus you expel should you be infected. Different masks will reduce this amount to varying levels but all will have an effect. Additionally, although masks generally will not stop you becoming infected they will reduce the vital inoculum (dose) you are exposed to so likely have a positive impact on how ill you may become. FFP2 (N95) and FFP3 masks are the highest quality masks (cloth the lowest) but these are not cheap and not everyone can afford these on an ongoing basis.
Well said @Quarterman and thanks for all the work everyone in the industry puts in ! I also know a scientist who has been involved since the start and I find it incredible that people still can't trust the these people that are trying to help us, now and in the future. I had a discussion with a young lad at work before Xmas who didn't want to take the vaccine as he doesn't trust it, I asked him if he'd ever had polio or rubella ? When he said no i just replied well that's because you had a vaccine for it when you were younger
Genuinely laughed out loud at this. Brilliant.
I certainly can’t take any credit personally as I work in Oncology trials rather than Vaccine trials, but I can attest to the sheer amount of work involved in the development/trial process. The complexity of the scientific work, the Regulatory and ethical concerns and implications of the work, and the intricacies involved in clinical trials are still mind boggling at times (even after 15 years in the industry) and anyone that questions the fact the vaccine approvals were in any way rushed are completely ignorant of the facts. As a part of my role I often sit in on calls with the Physicians at the Pharmaceutical companies involved in monitoring trials from a safety aspect and their intelligence, thoroughness and integrity is quite humbling and awe inspiring. I might consider myself a reasonably intelligent bloke but these men and women are absolutely on a different level and pretty unbelievable. New drugs will always cause adverse reactions alongside the good they do, but never question the integrity of the people involved in the drug development itself. Pharmaceutical companies themselves, once they have an approved drug, are a business like any other and need to make money in order to drive the development of other novel drugs. No profit means no development, and there always will be discussion about that aspect of the industry. But given it takes several billion pounds to develop any one successful drug (including development of unsuccessful drugs, which make i the vast majority) and once approved you may only be able to sell that drug for 5 or 6 years before it’s patent expires (20 year patent, could be 10-15 years in development) it’s simple economics to understand the requirement to sell that drug at a price.
Fascinating reading @Quarterman which has only cemented my uneducated opinion. Clear, easy to understand & thorough.
@HolmerBlue A point I often mention using the exact same words. Usual response is well those vaccines were not rushed through or still waiting for the long term effects 1st.
Well as a nation there must have been about 100 million jabs issued so far, which to my mind makes for a pretty large clinical trial. As for the long term effects, if we all waited that long I have doubts that there would be many left to benefit.
My guess would be that we have some players who are reluctant to be vaccinated (which in my view is not the same as being anti-vax).
This would potentially make it difficult for the club to make too much noise about vaccination although I agree with pretty much
I’m not sure that insisting that a player is vaccinated to continue to work is currently either legally or morally the right thing to do> @ReturnToSenda said:
Depressingly it is a fairly common misconception In my experience (although the latest variant does seem to have made the penny drop with a lot of people). People genuinely seemed to think that if they’d been double-jabbed they couldn’t catch it or pass it on.
We seem to live in a world where If something can’t be easily said and understood in a three word phrase a lot of people won’t get the message.*
And thanks @Quarterman - interesting and helpful
*overly patronising I know but it does wind me up
Thanks @Quarterman. Interesting reading and valuable clarification of what masks, vaccines etc can or cannot do. I was interested also in @HolmerBlue’s reference to vaccines for polio and rubella. I believe the rubella one is part of the MMR vaccine for infants/young children which also covers mumps and measles. I remember polio being endemic in the late ‘forties/early ‘fifties but I didn’t realise that a vaccine against it was still being administered or at least as recently as when @HolmerBlue’s young colleague was a boy.
On the question of masks, I use the basic disposable blue and white ones. Early on in the pandemic I was told that they could be re-used after three days if kept ‘in a clean environment’. I keep mine in individual quart sized ziplock bags. I would welcome confirmation, @Quarterman, that I was correctly advised.
Hi @micra The advice on re-using masks can be a bit different depending on who you speak with and your risk. For example, I only use cloth masks and wash them regularly, as I’m sure many do. In your situation, your risk is higher and I think using a surgical or N95 mask makes sense, but as N95 are very expensive surgical masks are a good option.
I believe you are talking about surgical masks in your message above. If you are, these are better than cloth masks as they have additional filtration so are a safer choice. If you are re-using masks I would say the following.
Hope that helps!
PS - up watching the cricket so decided to take my mind off it to write this message!
I see reports that the French are changing their rules from Jan 25th, so that all professional sports player must be fully vaccinated to continue playing. Previously they have permitted a recent negative Covid test as an alternative to full vaccination.
It's the same stance as the French have taken in other sectors it seems. Also reported that >3000 care workers were suspended back in September (?) for not being fully vaccinated.
Personally, I think we would now be seeing the benefit if this rule had been applied in the UK.
Can you advise on the best type of face mask to fully cover your eyes when England are ‘batting’?
@bookertease that did make me laugh. Last night was pretty horrendous!
EGs: From submissions by state lawyer to American appellate court hearing case about state vaccination mandate:
“It is difficult to imagine a more paradigmatic health and safety condition than a requirement that workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical facilities take the step that most effectively prevents transmission of a deadly virus to vulnerable patients,” (https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/vaccine-mandates-take-center-stage-at-u-s-supreme-court/)
Anthony Fauci:
"...If you do get infected...the chances are very likely that you'll not be able to transmit it to other people..." (1min 40s @
Report from parliament website claiming vaccination "can reduce transmission...": https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-vaccines-and-virus-transmission/
I find a couple of good blinks and I've missed the worst of it anyway. No need for a mask ...
Evening/morning @Quarterman. Read your helpful post re masks this morning but have only just got round to thanking you.
On the point about longevity of viruses on particular surfaces, I remember reading years ago an article about the practice of covering toilet seats with toilet paper in public conveniences. The writer maintained that viruses have greater difficulty adhering to hard shiny surfaces than they do to paper. On that basis, I assumed that ziplock bags were preferable to paper bags for quarantining the disposable blue and white masks. I’ve stayed clear so far but perhaps I have just been lucky.
Hi @micra, no worries at all. Viruses will always survive on non-porous hard surfaces (plastics etc) for longer than paper or card etc. Honestly though, these tests are always done in perfect conditions and viruses generally do not live for anywhere near as long in the real world as the lab tests suggests (think of mpg advertised for cars are never what you actually get in reality). Additionally, this virus is primarily transmitted via the airborne route, rather than through contaminated objects (fomites), so I wouldn’t suggest you’ve been lucky. It sounds like you take additional care when compared to the average individual, thus your level of protection will be higher - long may it continue :-)