What Next If The Season Gets Voided?

Discussion in 'The Hornets' Nest - Watford Chat' started by Hogg-DEENEY!!!, Mar 19, 2020.

  1. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    It's the "basic word definition" that you are using differently that is causing this rather tedious exchange.

    Of course the evidence points to fit and younger people being less vulnerable to this virus. And, yes, there is ever growing evidence that genetics are having a part to play.

    But equally other factors like the viral load are also a factor, hence the disproportionate number of deaths in younger health front line workers.

    So, yes, if we have a definitive understanding of all the factors that determine whether someone is likely to die or not then we could say which people will definitely not be at risk.

    But we are not there yet and that is the point. Footballers have literally died on football pitches before now from undiagnosed underlying conditions.

    So right now anybody can die from this virus because we simply do not know how it works and what makes some people's reaction to it so much more severe than others.

    Having said that, risks are part of everyday life and we will have to find a way to live with this virus while minimising that risk.

    Footballers, like everyone else, are entitled to evaluate the risk and make their own minds up whether it is worth it or not.
    Burnsy and Keighley like this.
  2. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

  3. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    It is also now coming to light that asthma isn't even a risk factor for coronavirus. In fact, asthma may even reduce the possibility of becoming severely infected by it as people with asthma have lower quantities of the ACE2 receptors which coronavirus binds to (by contrast with say people with diabetes who have higher quantities of ACE2 receptors).

    Data from New York, Wuhan, and research published in The Lancet from European researchers has shown that asthma is underrepresented in the proportion of people dying from coronavirus relative to the proportion of people with asthma in the general population, and the proportion of people with asthma catching coronavirus is similar to the proportion in the general population. Asthma does not even feature in the list of top 10 comorbidities with coronavirus.


    As for Tammy Abraham, quite - he is 22 on a load of money, what on Earth is he doing still living with his parents? Perhaps this will still be the kick up the backside he needs to move out.
  4. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

    They say life imitates art. New BBC series, at about 17 seconds:
  5. wfc4ever

    wfc4ever First Team Captain

    Maybe he is that close to his family and doesn't feel he wants to move out ?

    He's only just got into the Chelsea side really.

    Yes he has money but isn't everything to all footballers.
  6. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    OK, but that’s no widely known yet - I have asthma and that’s the first I have heard of this. I don’t imagine a PL footballer would be up to speed on it.
  7. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    So I ask again - who ‘can not’ die of it? One person who is proved to not be able to die from it?

    Because by your equations so far, it’s like saying someone who recovers from cancer cannot die from cancer...
    Knight GT likes this.
  8. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Only 2 children under 15 in the whole of the UK have died from coronavirus. So we can already pinpoint some groups of people which will definitely not be at risk.

    The points you have made also don't detract from the fact that Keighley misused the word - but no doubt he appreciates that your more detailed post has effectively bailed him out from having to try and explain himself more thoroughly.

    It's counter-productive though when those footballers are then making outspoken statements based on what is likely either: a misunderstanding of the risks; an ill-informed view of the risks; or a wilful misrepresentation of the risks to suit their personal agenda.
  9. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Sorry, what word am I supposed to have “misused”?

    Your argument seemed to be that because some people haven’t died, that proves that it is false that anyone can die of it. Whereas I would read that simply as telling us that not everyone will die of it. The two aren’t the same.
    Last edited: May 16, 2020
    The undeniable truth likes this.
  10. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    So we are now on to attacking a 22 year old for still living at home. You literally have no insight into his reasoning at all.

    Maybe his parents have other conditions you don’t know about which means he has to care for them? Maybe he was in the process of buying a house when all this happened? Maybe he suffers with his mental health and living in his own isn’t for him if he’s a single man?

    All the above could be factors. But no, let’s allude to him being pathetic for living at home at just 22 because he’s got some money.
    Jack5 and Knight GT like this.
  11. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    Seems like you’re the one misusing the word ‘definitely’ to me.
  12. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    As 2 under 15 year olds have died then, by definition, that group is definitely at risk.

    Obviously it is an extremely low risk but, unless you could identify for sure which 2 were going to die then it could have been anyone within that cohort.

    That is the point. Anyone can die from this virus.
  13. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that anyone can die from it. You made the statement "anyone can die" from coronavirus. You have not been able to prove that all of the people who have contracted and survived coronavirus could have died from it (and coronavirus is not the same as cancer).

    It is generally considered that around 20-40% (see below) of people who contract coronavirus are asymptomatic. As I've already stated - you can not die from coronavirus if you do not get any symptoms from it.

    So, how can you prove that the 20-40% of all people who contract coronavirus and are asymptomatic could have died from it, when all the evidence points to the contrary? That's hundreds of thousands of people showing that you can get coronavirus and not die from it, not just one.

    Also, only 2 children in the UK under 15 have died from coronavirus - a 5 year-old and a 14 year-old. How can you prove that say a 10 year-old in the UK can die from coronavirus when none have?

  14. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    By that point it doesn't even count as a "group". The numbers are so small as to be meaningless.

    Plus, they were a 5 year-old and a 14 year-old - I could simply say that the "group" of 6-13 year-olds are definitely not at risk.
  15. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    Oh come on. 2 out of 10m or so? Both kids had underlying health conditions, and at least one was a baby. There must be hundreds of causes of death that are more statistically serious than that.
    Jumbolina likes this.
  16. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    A TV show, about football? But people are dying!

    How disrespectful. How dare they expect us to watch such frivolities. We should just have rolling coverage of live footage from A+E wards interspersed with documentaries on African famine.
    Jumbolina likes this.
  17. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    You could say that but you would be wrong because children within those age groups have died in other countries.

    And the numbers are not meaningless. They died of Covid-19 and prove that it is possible, however unlikely, that children can die from the virus.

    I understand what you are trying to say. Certain groups are significantly less likely to die than other groups.

    But it is a simple fact that anyone of any age could die from it and there is, therefore, a risk to everyone. There is no group that is "definitely not at risk".
  18. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    If including the baby last week I think that now makes it 3. But yeah, the point still stands.
  19. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    So once again, You can’t.

    You’ve contradicted yourself by saying 2 children under 15 have died so that’s an age group that definitely isn’t at risk. The 2 points are in direct conflict with one another and it’s baffling how you don’t understand that. The risks might be finite in some age groups - but there is ZERO proof anywhere that anyone is immune. Yet you, and only you, believe there is.

    You bring up the case of being asymptomatic - can you find me anything that says once someone is asymptomatic to this virus, that they always will be? Or that once recovered from the virus that they are definitely immune in future?

    You repeatedly peddle this line that the burden of proof is on me - my evidence would be that there is nothing at all available anywhere that proves definitively and conclusively that certain people/age-groups etc are immune from the virus. At this point of the virus, that’s all the ‘proof’ you should need.
    sydney_horn likes this.
  20. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    I didn't say that it was a serious risk or that other risks of death were less likely.

    The very simple point is that no group can be seen as having no risk of dying whatsoever, so the statement that "anybody can die from Covid-19" is an undisputable fact.
  21. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    And how would you know conclusively at this stage of the virus that 6-13 are definitely not at risk?

    It could be said that they ‘have not’ been at risk, but even that’s shaky ground. Not that it’s definitive that they won’t be at risk.

    By your reasoning it could have been said the day before the 14yr old died that the virus ‘doesn’t affect 14yr olds’ - and then that child died. Could it still be claimed not to affect 14yr olds? In your head, yes. Which is bizarre as it’s clearly not true.
  22. Jumbolina

    Jumbolina First Team

    We can all potentially die from adult cot death syndrome but why waste time discussing it when the risk is so low?
    HappyHornet24 and zztop like this.
  23. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    That’s the issue. Your point doesn’t ‘stand’ up to scrutiny.
  24. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    I'm not arguing with you but the fact still remains that anyone could die from Covid-19.

    Even some "underlying health conditions" are not apparent until after death so it's impossible to point at anyone and say you definitely won't die if you get it.

    Personally, if my son hadn't just finished school, I would send him in if the head felt the small risk of infection had been mitigated. And if I were a fit professional football player I would not hesitate to play if the social distancing off the pitch and testing are in place.

    It is, however, factually correct to say anyone could die from it and that is the only point I, and others, are making.
    HappyHornet24 and Jumbolina like this.
  25. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    You've still not demonstrated otherwise.
  26. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    You still haven't proven that they are at risk.

    The burden of proof is on you to show that they can die. Where is your evidence that they can?
  27. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

    Come on, realistically there isn’t one cause of death on the planet that wouldn’t also have killed less than two people in that age group. Flu would’ve easily killed more people in that age group, it’s just not news is it.
  28. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    By that point the notion of "grouping" such people also becomes meaningless.

    What links all 11 year-olds in the UK, with say, one dead 6 year-old in Iran, sufficient to the point that you can logically label them together as a "group"?

    You can't establish a group based on isolated incidents, or on such meaningless and arbitrary criteria given the complex nature of individuals.
  29. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    See my previous replies. It is not a high risk.

    But the statement that @lowerrous was disputing, that "anyone can die of covid-19" is an undeniable fact.

    That is the only point I'm making.
  30. a19tgg

    a19tgg Reservist

    Anyone can die of anything
    sydney_horn likes this.
  31. Burnsy

    Burnsy Squad Player

    Gonna leave this here as it’s hijacking the thread, going round in circles and contrary to belief, I have no personal issue at all with the person I’m ‘debating’ with.

    Still, quite staggered though. Off now to check if I’m one of the lucky few who simply cannot die...
  32. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    But isn’t complexity precisely the point? (And it’s not just individual genetic complexity, it is also external factors such as rapid access to quality healthcare).

    Because there is such complexity, we also cannot definitively say that anyone is immune. At least until the science is more advanced.
    sydney_horn likes this.
  33. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    You are the one that is saying a particular group is definitely at no risk. There are definitely groups, such as the young, that are at almost negligible risk but that is not the same as no risk.

    In the New York they have even had 3 deaths in under 17 year olds with no underlying conditions at all.

    It's a simple point. Almost zero risk does not equal no risk so, again, anybody can die of this virus.
  34. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Reservist

    Yes, that's what @lowerrous doesn't get. But like @Burnsy I'll leave it there because I fear he never will.
  35. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    As per Keighley's point above, given the number of variables such isolated incidents do not qualify as sufficient proof. How can you say that the circumstances of whoever those kids were in NY are the same as a random, completely unrelated kid of the same age in the UK or elsewhere? You can't.

Share This Page