GAA Response to Coronavirus

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Smurfy123

Exactly hound
Regardless of what you do in life it will always have a risk attached
You may break your leg on a pitch but not likely
You may catch the virus on the pitch and likely not to die

five points

Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2020, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
There's an argument that under 40s should be let play away (and work away for that matter). The number of deaths in this age group from Covid is tiny and almost all with an underlying condition. So as much chance of dying from a sudden heart attack as Covid-19.

Obviously there'd need to be common sense, nobody with even a cold should be playing or attending games. People who have asthma or who are obese should stay away too, but I think a coherent case could be made to allow the healthy U40s try and get back to normal. (I'm over 40 by the way so should be kept under current lockdown measures for a little while longer!)

Totally missing the point. the less than 40 year old can get infected, can take up a hospital bed, can put strain on our hospital and front line workers, can infect their work colleagues, can spread disease to the vulnerable and yet as you say only a tiny amount of them will die.

Very very few healthy under 40s need hospitalisation when they catch Covid-19.


And, the under 40s who are sufficiently fit and able to play competitive team sport won't be the same as the under 40s who are likely to fall seriously ill if they catch a virus.

trueblue1234

Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
There's an argument that under 40s should be let play away (and work away for that matter). The number of deaths in this age group from Covid is tiny and almost all with an underlying condition. So as much chance of dying from a sudden heart attack as Covid-19.

Obviously there'd need to be common sense, nobody with even a cold should be playing or attending games. People who have asthma or who are obese should stay away too, but I think a coherent case could be made to allow the healthy U40s try and get back to normal. (I'm over 40 by the way so should be kept under current lockdown measures for a little while longer!)

That's the reserve leagues f**ked then.
Grammar: the difference between knowing your shit

magpie seanie

Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2020, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
There's an argument that under 40s should be let play away (and work away for that matter). The number of deaths in this age group from Covid is tiny and almost all with an underlying condition. So as much chance of dying from a sudden heart attack as Covid-19.

Obviously there'd need to be common sense, nobody with even a cold should be playing or attending games. People who have asthma or who are obese should stay away too, but I think a coherent case could be made to allow the healthy U40s try and get back to normal. (I'm over 40 by the way so should be kept under current lockdown measures for a little while longer!)

Totally missing the point. the less than 40 year old can get infected, can take up a hospital bed, can put strain on our hospital and front line workers, can infect their work colleagues, can spread disease to the vulnerable and yet as you say only a tiny amount of them will die.

Very very few healthy under 40s need hospitalisation when they catch Covid-19.

There'll always be risk. And if going out to do groceries and take exercise is acceptable risk to society, then letting healthy under 40s play ball is increasing that risk by a tiny amount compared to the benefits it will have.

Getting food and taking some exercise alone/with your household are essential for physical and mental well being. Much and all as we love it, playing gaelic games are not. I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend for people.

magpie seanie

Lar - sorry to hear you contracted Covid19. Delighted you're recovering well. Take care.

Itchy

Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2020, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
There's an argument that under 40s should be let play away (and work away for that matter). The number of deaths in this age group from Covid is tiny and almost all with an underlying condition. So as much chance of dying from a sudden heart attack as Covid-19.

Obviously there'd need to be common sense, nobody with even a cold should be playing or attending games. People who have asthma or who are obese should stay away too, but I think a coherent case could be made to allow the healthy U40s try and get back to normal. (I'm over 40 by the way so should be kept under current lockdown measures for a little while longer!)

Totally missing the point. the less than 40 year old can get infected, can take up a hospital bed, can put strain on our hospital and front line workers, can infect their work colleagues, can spread disease to the vulnerable and yet as you say only a tiny amount of them will die.

Very very few healthy under 40s need hospitalisation when they catch Covid-19.

There'll always be risk. And if going out to do groceries and take exercise is acceptable risk to society, then letting healthy under 40s play ball is increasing that risk by a tiny amount compared to the benefits it will have.

You can do groceries and maintain 2m social distance and good hygiene. You cannot play a game of football and do either. Why are you intentionally making comparisons that are just simply ridiculous. The under 40 will likely be unaffected, what about the people this under 40 comes in contact with or are they just collateral damage?

Ed Ricketts

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.
Doc would listen to any kind of nonsense and change it for you to a kind of wisdom.

imtommygunn

It's also about protecting the healthcare system from being overloaded. Some would argue that is the chief concern.

five points

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 14, 2020, 12:28:28 PM
It's also about protecting the healthcare system from being overloaded. Some would argue that is the chief concern.

That was the basis upon which it was mooted and implemented in the first place.

Cluborcountywhynotboth

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]

Not one single person is saying that. What people are saying is that we have very defined sections of the community that are at a much much higher risk from this awful disease, yet at the moment we are in total lockdown for everyone (barring essential workers etc...). There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable. 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.

smort

#625
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]

Not one single person is saying that. What people are saying is that we have very defined sections of the community that are at a much much higher risk from this awful disease, yet at the moment we are in total lockdown for everyone (barring essential workers etc...). There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable. 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.

I live with someone vulnerable, I couldn't go back to football then. And we have boys who work as carers. And one of our backroom team has an elderly parent who lives with him. That's just off the top of my head, could be more. Soon down a good few numbers.

Taylor

Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: Itchy on May 13, 2020, 12:38:22 PM
Quote from: Hound on May 13, 2020, 12:23:46 PM
There's an argument that under 40s should be let play away (and work away for that matter). The number of deaths in this age group from Covid is tiny and almost all with an underlying condition. So as much chance of dying from a sudden heart attack as Covid-19.

Obviously there'd need to be common sense, nobody with even a cold should be playing or attending games. People who have asthma or who are obese should stay away too, but I think a coherent case could be made to allow the healthy U40s try and get back to normal. (I'm over 40 by the way so should be kept under current lockdown measures for a little while longer!)

Totally missing the point. the less than 40 year old can get infected, can take up a hospital bed, can put strain on our hospital and front line workers, can infect their work colleagues, can spread disease to the vulnerable and yet as you say only a tiny amount of them will die.

Very very few healthy under 40s need hospitalisation when they catch Covid-19.

There'll always be risk. And if going out to do groceries and take exercise is acceptable risk to society, then letting healthy under 40s play ball is increasing that risk by a tiny amount compared to the benefits it will have.

Hound - do you really think the risk is increased by a tiny amount?

Say all precautions were taken - no changing rooms/huddle/team talk etc - you are right that it would be a tiny risk.

But comparing playing in the middle of a game with doing groceries/taking exercise is absolutely ludicrous

Rossfan

Where does Cluborcounty propose to dump the elderly, sick, disabled etc?
Presumably only elderly sick or disabled carers, medics etc will be allowed look after them?
And I expect no visits from family etc.

Sounds a bit like Germany from 1933....
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

Ed Ricketts

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.

Not one single person is saying that.

Of course no one is saying that. It's utterly disgusting. But whether they realise it or not, that's where these suggestions lead.

Quote from: Cluborcountywhynotboth on May 14, 2020, 12:33:32 PM
What people are saying is that we have very defined sections of the community that are at a much much higher risk from this awful disease, yet at the moment we are in total lockdown for everyone (barring essential workers etc...). There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable. 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.

This is great and all, but it just won't work in the real world. The 'shielding' strategy will never be airtight enough that you can afford to have a huge proportion of the population running around unchecked. The best way to keep death tolls down is to keep infections down across the entire population. Unless you don't really care about death tolls, because it's mostly just old and fat people dying and they don't matter.
Doc would listen to any kind of nonsense and change it for you to a kind of wisdom.

Taylor

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]

Not one single person is saying that. What people are saying is that we have very defined sections of the community that are at a much much higher risk from this awful disease, yet at the moment we are in total lockdown for everyone (barring essential workers etc...). There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable. 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.

So if a young, healthy footballer lives with anyone old, vulnerable etc either they dont play and also isolate or they are shit out of luck and have to find a new home for the forseeable future in order to play ball?