So 20000 or so go to protests on weekend with virtually no social distancing, so why can't 20000 people go to a sporting venue that seats 50000 to 100000 with every 2nd seat empty?
Obviously families & people who live together can sit together.
Why Can't 20000 People Go to a Sporting Venue That Seats 50000 to 100000 with Every 2nd Seat Empty?
Everybodyneedsto on 10/06/2020 - 09:57
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 11:15 by 1 other user
Last edited 10/06/2020 - 11:15 by 1 other user
Comments
Because telling protesters what to do, typically doesn't end well
Toilet facilities is more of a transmission risk than standing next to a fellow masked protestor for a few minutes.
There's also the big crowds when going into and out of the venue where everyone's packed like sardines.
"…why can't 20000 people go to a sporting venue…"
Because it is not yet permitted by the health departments / governments that are tasked with managing the spread of COVID-19.
But protests of 20,000 are ?
Nothing consistent there.
Maybe not, but that is the reason why we can't.
One is a controlled access site.
The other was not.What does controlled access have anything to do with it ?
Think politicians need to be very careful.
If someone's life has been ruined by very bad decisions, instead of suicide, that person might take it out on politicians.
@Everybodyneedsto: By controlled access, I mean that the access gates are locked. The game is not being played in a public park.
Because freedom of speech and democratic values are more important than watching some blokes with bad haircuts throw a ball around.
It’s not just about sitting in your seat. Toilets, entering and leaving are major contact points. public transport adds another factor.
That is a good point.
At first glance OP has a valid logical point around spacing patrons out in a huge stadium. But on further digging, the transport, ticketing, security, food/drink facilities and toilets then create more problems that would need to be solved first. So it's easier just to ban attendance altogether.
But going to a protest by crowded transport is fine ?
If it were up to me, everyone of the protesters should be fined for breaking the social distancing thing. But our weak as p…. politicians dont have any guts. But that's for another thread…
But going to the supermarket during peak hour or getting on a packed tram is perfectly reasonable..playing golf or going fishing wasn't. The whole thing was patently absurd to any thinking person that applies a modicum of common sense.
Perhaps the need to purchase food or going to/from work is essential where as belting a little white ball around a golf course isn't? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Yes. It was about limiting contact with others to absolute necessity - and it seems to have worked so far. If you’ve only been to the supermarket and work it’s a damn sight easier to track and trace than if you’ve been to golf and fishing and …. and….
Because the magistrates are so scared to be labelled racist and blah blah blah why they allowed them. Let that sink in.
My understanding is that the appeal judge decided that the protest was an authorised public assembly; no mention of race, colour, religion, sexual leanings, school background, right/left handed, golf handicap, etc.
good question.
apparently there was no virus in coles/woolies/bunnings/officeworks.
you could only catch the virus at sports/entertainment venues/bars/pubs/cafes and all small businesses
oh and it's ok to go and protest for BLM, you wont catch it there either or get finedwe've all been scammed. lives decimated over something which has a death rate here of 100 in 25million, that too with a average age over 60.
at what point in history have we ever "quarantined" the healthy?
A successful response to a pandemic is always going to be criticised when it has been effective. "Nothing happened so it was a waste of time/effort/money." ¯_(ツ)_/¯
successful hey? nothing happened?
Australia has been highly successful in suppressing the virus. Our death toll and number of infections have been low due to successful implementation of public health initiatives.
When there is no immunity/effective vaccination, with a unknown delay between being ill with symptoms and being able to spread the virus, quarantining the sick is insufficient.
Certainly there have been dramatic economic impacts at national and personal level. But given the impact in a number of countries, not undertaking drastic counter-measures would have been a catastrophe.
When there is no immunity
so you understand nothing then…. i go back to my statement:
95%+ asymptomatic - do you understand what that means? means 95% of the global population would get it and not or barely even notice it.
this means 95% of the population can deal with this with their own immune system.
we didn't need vaccines to get over SARS/MERS/Swine/bird whatever else, they ran their course and left.
this means 95% of the population can deal with this with their own immune system.
Where do these figures come from?
That between 5% and 80% of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 may be asymptomatic
That symptom-based screening will miss cases, perhaps a lot of them
That some asymptomatic cases will become symptomatic over the next week (sometimes known as “pre-symptomatics”)
That children and young adults can be asymptomatic. There is not a single reliable study to determine the number of asymptotics.It is likely we will only learn the true extent once population based antibody testing is undertaken.Source: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-a…
what are we going to do now that we are coming out of lock down and heading into our own cold and flu season
1255 deaths in 2017.
Clearly, a more strict lockdown is required. /s
@ozhunter: COVID-19 = seasonal cold/flu? I disagree. I don't think the WHO would class the annual influenza virus a pandemic despite its impact on the elderly and immune deficient.
The very young were suffering from a Kawasaki like condition if infected by COVID-19.
https://news.yahoo.com/kawasaki-syndrome-found-children-covi…
Wasn't a Boomer only disease.@DashCam AKA Rolts: In Australia, the flu has been and is expected to be much more deadly than Covid19, yet we still don't lockdown for it.
@ozhunter: Already had my vaccination, how about you? I may still get the flu, but my immune response should lessen the impact, and I probably won't die as a result.
I'll be booking in for a COVID-19 Vaccination as soon/if one becomes available.@DashCam AKA Rolts: No, why would I? Extremely small chance I would die from it.
There's even a small chance I'd die from covid19, so why would I want to get a vaccination?
@ozhunter: I'm all right, F U! Am I right?
What about vulnerable family members, work colleagues/acquaintances and their families? Not just the elderly, those with repressed immune systems, e.g. undertaking chemo etc. Very young, those with chronic health issues?
@DashCam AKA Rolts: No, but I don't think I should be forced to inject myself with chemicals so others might not get infected of something. I've taken vaccinations before and probably would be okay with a covid one if it's been proven safe, say for like 20 years.
But yea, still no lockdown for the flu even though it has been much more deadly than covid19. We have very low infection rates compared to last year, likely due to all these restrictions. Maybe if they made it even more strict, there would be even less deaths. There's many other ways people die, you'd think we'd put billions/trillions towards it considering the death rate compared to covid.
We have very low infection rates compared to last year,
One of the reasons for this, is that in many situations it is now mandated to have a flu vaccination. For example, since the start of May, to enter an aged care home, you must provide proof of a current flu shot. You may not enter without this. I assume other institutions are setting in place similar requirements.
Many schools offer free flu shots to their staff.
So I think there may be a greater uptake this year of the flu vaccine. I am aware of GPs being proactive in promoting the uptake of this with their vulnerable patients, or those with family members in risk groups.
Ours has been a highly successful response. Just compare our figures with Italy, Spain, UK, USA. Yes, it has cost jobs and $ but it will recover quickly. You can’t recover from dying.
USA screwed up and have lost a thousand times more people with a population around 10 times ours.
You don't seem to understand how science works. A scientist makes a worst case scenario prediction, then they tell us how we can avoid that scenario. We follow his direction, worst case scenario avoided.
Unless you want to live in one of those disaster movies where every scientist is ignored until it's too late then millions really do die?
Unless you want to live in one of those disaster movies where every scientist is ignored until it's too late then millions really do die?
Or the USA.
As a vulnerable person I’d love to stay quarantined, but I keep having to go out for those all my pesky cancer treatments and scans.
that too with a average age over 60.
Just to clarify, only 3 out of the 102 were under 60.
Couldn't agree more. Politicians have gone power made & now look very stupid for complete over reaction but are trying to save face.
In day or 3 we'll hear them say, you've all been so good that all restrictions will end or maybe 14 days after protests, so Sunday week maybe ?
And then if we did nothing and let the virus go out of control just like it did in other countries, we would have seen more deaths and more people infected overcowding our hospitals.
Then you'll be complaining why we didn't do anything.I don't think corona effects the general population, only those in poor health/reduced immunity like elderly, those on cancer & other treatments.
Social problems already far worse.
@Everybodyneedsto: The Australian Government introduced policies to protect the vulnerable from poorly educated people who are more than happy to risk other people lives. BTW The first protester has now tested positive.
The more important question is, who will decide which 20,000 will be entitled to attend the game? Maybe not a problem with some ARL games, but plenty of AFL games are over that figure.
Easy; only let club members attend. Nope, a lot of clubs have in excess of that membership base.
Ok; just MCG members, well maybe just the young fit ones, not the old ones (too risky).
Or just make it corporate sponsors. They are obviously swimming in money (well, they were) and would obviously be too healthy and glowing to contract a virus (or spread it), and likely drive to the game (i.e. no public transport concerns for them). Not so popular with the club supporter base, but it would provide some atmosphere at the ground. Except most of those people don't cheer or even watch the game at times.It's a bit hard, isn't it. Maybe just give 20,000 tickets to OP and they can decide who they want to invite.
If mcg holds close to 100,000 then sell 1/2 seats, minimum.
Not good enough; any number of AFL clubs in Melbourne have >50k. members (without factoring in the opponent club membership base).
So sell tickets. 1st in best dressed or those with season tickets get 1st look. Really if no restrictions at all on protests, then should be no restrictions on anything attached all.
@Everybodyneedsto: You missed the point; the vast majority of memberships include access to games. Can't then sell them tickets at a further cost.
First in/first look: what about all the other members that have already paid for their tickets? That seems terribly unjust.@GG57: Yes & everyone should be able to go anywhere after no fines whatsoever at protests. Think a huge proportion of electorate would agree with that. Crazy part is state election in Qld in about 3 months & many welders seem very angry with their premier, at least all the ones I speak to every day. None of them were at weekend protests.
@Everybodyneedsto: You suggested limiting the number of people at the footy. You asked why it couldn't happen.
You didn't suggest how that could be achieved in practical terms (leaving aside the potential health risks).
@Everybodyneedsto: "…(leaving aside the potential health risks)…" so I'm ignoring your comment as irrelevant.
You still haven't come up with a solution to fit 50,000 people into a 100,000 capacity stadium, when the demand will exceed that.
@ozhunter: As I stated earlier, that seems terribly unjust if people have already purchased club memberships which includes access to games.
OP's question is "Why Can't 20000 People Go to a Sporting Venue That Seats 50000 to 100000 with Every 2nd Seat Empty". I am pointing out that there is not a practical solution (and OP can't seem to find one either).As I stated earlier, that seems terribly unjust if people have already purchased club memberships which includes access to games.
It's a pandemic lol. Not like we haven't made exceptions elsewhere. So yea, first come, first served.
@ozhunter: Ok, at least you have acknowledged the existence of the pandemic, unlike OP.
The obvious option is to not allow any spectators. Apparently we are all in this together, so that seems to be an equitable solution (but won't keep OP happy) to what is just a viewing event anyway.
As a newspaper today stated, every game is a home game for both teams.@GG57: Technically it is a pandemic, but isn't a flu also one? The rate now and even before is miniscule. I think at least 80k should be able to attend a footy game.
We could just cancel sporting events for good. Less chance of people getting any communicable disease.
@ozhunter: I'm not sure of your thinking why 80k should be able to attend; in some cases even that would be unpractical for the membership size of the relevant clubs.
For example, last night Richmond vs. Collingwood, first game after the season pause, would easily have been in excess of 80k.
@ozhunter: Even after all the chaos in other countries who have left this virus go unchecked, people still comparing this to the flu. Amazing.
@ozhunter: Surely that is the case only if the social distancing and hygiene measures are in place.
If those were not in place, the death rate would have been much worse.
PC
What ?
The diamond princess was a good study of asymptomatic covid19 cases. I cannot find the study done so I cannot recall the exact stats
It was done by CDC when they extracted USA citizens from Japan. They had a sample size of about 3000(?) people. At first the people who had the virus but were not showing symptoms was about 30%(? or 20%). They then followed up after to check if symptoms developed, which is the only way to know if they really have no symptoms or the symptoms have not developed. The final count for passengers who were asymptomatic was a lot less. under 10%.
I apologise if the numbers are wrong. I am trying hard to find the podcast and the study.
ABC news just reported a man who got sick 1 day after attending the protest in Melb. They said that it was unlikely he caught it at the rally. However he could have been infectious.
Quoting those infected doesn't mean anything. It's deaths that count & have been any with healthy people?
Not sure there have.
what do you mean "It's deaths that count & have been any with healthy people?'
Are you refering to how many infected and eventually die?
I was trying to illustrate the stats of asymptomatic carriers. It is not as high as though. Most assume to be asymptomatic go on to develop symptoms.
The more infections there are the more deaths there will be. This is a highly infectious disease so we need to know how many infections there are so we can manage those that do get sick from it.
What about healthy people who have gotten very sick and require valuable hospital resources? You know, the whole reason we flattened the curve, so our health system had some hope to support COVID cases and all other patients.
Not many got very sick & they were only those with poor immune system
@Everybodyneedsto: That's flat out wrong - otherwise healthy people got sick, and in some instances, very sick.
@Randolph Duke: Not if you say healthy means normal immune system. We should have locked down the vunerable instead of nearly destroying the economy & creating many social problems
It'd be hard enough contact tracing for 200 people. Good luck contact tracing for 20,000 people and their contacts a week after the event.
Simple, the crowds that gather on the entry and exit of the stadium and the masses of people that take public transport to stadiums.
& what about crowds on public transport ? Most protesters on welfare.
If there is no spike in infections as a result of recent events, Hopefully, they will allow spectators in the stands in early July.
Just heard in radio in car, that national cabinet has decided to open all state borders by July 10 & all stadiums seating 40,000 or less can sell 10,000 seats. Larger stadiums very unclear. Hope I heard correctly.
Sounds like scomo announced it before Qld premier.
Nothing clear about NZ.
I just heard something similar on the radio (although I thought they said July 3rd).
Looks like they mention it here:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/coronavirus-updates-live-glo…Not quite accurate; Morrison can only "urge" the states to make certain decisions:
This report states that SA borders will reopen on July 20
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-12/sa-borders-to-reopen-…This report states that Tasmania will assess their border restrictions over the coming weeks:
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6791104/restrictions-to-ea…The sports stadiums 10,000/40,000 comment is accurate, except that "states are working toward those rules", so not confirmed yet. Stadiums with less that 40k capacity - the states are still working on those details.
No doubt NZ will open their borders when they want to, and not before.
The state of Victoria enters the chat.
Because fighting for people’s lives is a bit more important than watching people play with balls.
And in many states, they were told it wasn’t allowed and organisers may still be penalised.