GAA Response to Coronavirus

Started by screenexile, March 12, 2020, 12:10:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rossfan

Quote from: joemamas on May 18, 2020, 04:04:47 PM
Quote from: five points on May 18, 2020, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 18, 2020, 01:38:43 PM
I don't think all insurance is removed.

https://ulster.gaa.ie/2020/03/ulster-gaa-update-on-club-insurance/

Great to know this, thank you.

Q,

Why doesn't the minister for sport or the Government come out and provide general indemnification to all sporting grounds, i.e.,
you cannot sue a GAA club or others, because you think you or a family member may have gotten Covid-19 while either practicing or attending an event there.

More than likely unconstitutional in the 26 anyway, taking away a oereons recourse to the Law.
The Government will be propping up/forking out enough €€€€ for Business support , Social Welfare etc  without indemnifying a voluntary pastime.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

five points

Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2020, 04:48:05 PM
ause you think you or a family member may have gotten Covid-19 while either practicing or attending an event there.

More than likely unconstitutional in the 26 anyway, taking away a oereons recourse to the Law.
The Government will be propping up/forking out enough €€€€ for Business support , Social Welfare etc  without indemnifying a voluntary pastime.

Nonsense - the first rule of joining any club or association is that by doing so you greatly restrict your rights to sue that club or association.

There is no need in any event for any indemnity or other scheme. If someone invades your personal space in any public place, it is a form of assault, you are well within your rights to report this to the Gardai or police. It usually will have little or nothing to do with the owner of the property. Otherwise every forest path and every council green in the land would be shut.

Cluborcountywhynotboth

Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Rossfan

Quote from: five points on May 18, 2020, 04:57:22 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2020, 04:48:05 PM
ause you think you or a family member may have gotten Covid-19 while either practicing or attending an event there.

More than likely unconstitutional in the 26 anyway, taking away a oereons recourse to the Law.
The Government will be propping up/forking out enough €€€€ for Business support , Social Welfare etc  without indemnifying a voluntary pastime.

Nonsense - the first rule of joining any club or association is that by doing so you greatly restrict your rights to sue that club or association.

There is no need in any event for any indemnity or other scheme. If someone invades your personal space in any public place, it is a form of assault, you are well within your rights to report this to the Gardai or police. It usually will have little or nothing to do with the owner of the property. Otherwise every forest path and every council green in the land would be shut.
I wont be hiring you if I ever have recourse to Law.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

five points

Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2020, 05:20:33 PM
I wont be hiring you if I ever have recourse to Law.

What did I get wrong?

Rossfan

If you and I are at a match in some club ground and say 2 skates blew off the roof and clattered into us.
You're a member of that club , I'm not.
You'll find we both are entitled to compo and can certainly sue.
Now if you've signed some arrangement with the club not to sue them.....fine but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

five points

#741
Quote from: Rossfan on May 18, 2020, 05:56:34 PM
If you and I are at a match in some club ground and say 2 skates blew off the roof and clattered into us.
You're a member of that club , I'm not.
You'll find we both are entitled to compo and can certainly sue.
Now if you've signed some arrangement with the club not to sue them.....fine but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility.

You misread what I said. There is a difference between "greatly restrict" and "eliminate".

As long as you and I are members of the GAA, the scope each of us have to sue the GAA is indeed quite limited. The example of slates falling off a roof is a bad one as we're well entitled to be covered against injury arising from GAA negligence while on GAA property, even if we happen to be members.

If your young lad or mine gets his jaw broken at school, there's a good chance that the school will be held at least partly liable. If the same happens him while playing - and he can't legally play without being a member - he'd be wasting his time suing the GAA. And on that basis, if he catches Covid while playing, he'll have his work cut out in suing the GAA.

Taylor

Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Cluborcountywhynotboth

Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

Taylor

Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.


Cluborcountywhynotboth

#745
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:20:16 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.
My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn't think we would see football this year) said ' if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn't is quite within their rights not too.' So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn't go back in July, we can't go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to  go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

Taylor

Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:20:16 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.
My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn't think we would see football this year) said ' if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn't is quite within their rights not too.' So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn't go back in July, we can't go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to  go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

Cluborcountywhynotboth

Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:46:35 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:20:16 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.
My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn't think we would see football this year) said ' if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn't is quite within their rights not too.' So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn't go back in July, we can't go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to  go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That's what I have said all along. July.
You've just wasted I don't know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

Taylor

Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:46:35 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:20:16 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.
My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn't think we would see football this year) said ' if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn't is quite within their rights not too.' So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn't go back in July, we can't go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to  go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That's what I have said all along. July.
You've just wasted I don't know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

A hatchet job  ;D ;D

Jesus - its a debate as you said - lets not over dramatise it on a board of mostly anonymous people

I fundamentally disagreed with one of your posts and said so.


Cluborcountywhynotboth

Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:55:08 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:46:35 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 07:20:16 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 06:38:34 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 18, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on May 18, 2020, 04:41:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 15, 2020, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on May 14, 2020, 12:21:10 PM
The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.
[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....
IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You've taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You've very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says 'There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable'.  The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME'. As you've gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.
My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn't think we would see football this year) said ' if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn't is quite within their rights not too.' So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn't go back in July, we can't go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to  go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That's what I have said all along. July.
You've just wasted I don't know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

A hatchet job  ;D ;D

Jesus - its a debate as you said - lets not over dramatise it on a board of mostly anonymous people

I fundamentally disagreed with one of your posts and said so.
No, you cut and pasted one line from a post, ignoring the line before which gave it context and also the messages before and after which made quiet clear what was meant. There's a difference doing that and debating on what I actually said.