La Liga Proposes League Suspension.

[Mitchell1978]

Crowing the champion does not have much bearing on the others and individual leagues would have to vote on what they think is best way forward.

There is no alternative.

Who takes the CL spots if league is voided? Last years entrants? That is worse and more unfair than anythig.

i don't think any league will be really voided, even the dutch league decided to take the current standings to decide the european positions
i suspect if a team had a decent lead it would have been names champion also but now its difficult with 2 teams tied for points

 

[El Gato]

That's the whole problem with this. There's no solutions being developd anywhere, nothing being done, except closing everything. It's laughably bad. Just stop with this nonsense, until things go bad. Life need to get back to normal, with some precaution being taken to ensure this. Precaution doesn't mean locking people in their houses indefinitely. .

In two months they did basically nothing. They are using time to tell to people they need more time. And when that time is up they will say they need some more time.

The virus itself is less dangerous than what these morons are doing. Just fucking make sure the old people and hospitals are protected and allow us to carry on with our lives ffs. Majority of people who die, die in hospitals and care homes. They don't protect these places properly because they are focused on everyone, when the virus is very discriminating in affecting the old.

Well what solution is there other than waiting for vaccine testing period to pass? There's zero guarantee anything but social distancing will work. We know by now it's not just the old and the sick. Just because it's vast majority doesn't mean the minority should be put at risk. There's a South African Olympic swimmer who had it really fucking bad and went almost to brink of death.

Social distancing works. Here's what a professor at my university (St Andrews, Scotland) wrote on Facebook about it. He's not from the health industry, but is very involved in the public sector and is a very well esteemed data scientist.

Spoiler: .

Spoiler: graphs in a slightly better resolution, sorry if still rather shit

There is a point to this. And by all accounts, it's just a matter of time before we can return to the normal state of things. Risk factor on deviations from this lifestyle has not been estimated and people really ought not to try to do so based on what we know.

 

[serghei]

Well what solution is there other than waiting for vaccine testing period to pass? There's zero guarantee anything but social distancing will work. We know by now it's not just the old and the sick. Just because it's vast majority doesn't mean the minority should be put at risk. There's a South African Olympic swimmer who had it really fucking bad and went almost to brink of death.

Social distancing works. Here's what a professor at my university (St Andrews, Scotland) wrote on Facebook about it. He's not from the health industry, but is very involved in the public sector and is a very well esteemed data scientist.

Spoiler: .

Spoiler: graphs in a slightly better resolution

There is a point to this. And by all accounts, it's just a matter of time before we can return to the normal state of things. Risk factor on deviations from this lifestyle has not been estimated and people really ought not to try to do so based on what we know.

We do know by now that, while it's not only the old and the sick, the risk for young healthy people is minimal. I think it's estimated as the risk of dying in a car accident or something like that. Who the hell stays at home for 6 months because he may be hit by a car while walking on the street?

There's no point in locking out a huge number of people for something like 0.001 risk of dying at the hands of coronavirus or something. It's just an absurd, crazy solution. Maybe apply these measures for the vulnerable groups.

Think about it. Me and my friends and my family have access to around 500-1000 people among relatives, friends, friends of friends, work collegues and friends and so on. In my case not even 1 people out of those roughly 500 contacts has fallen severely ill by this.

Neither I or my friends, or my family or my family's friends have heard of a serious corona case, and trust me, we've all been on the phones for hours every day discussing these things (somehow the discussion leads to these corona related topics). Only way that happens is if the effect of the virus on normal people is incredibly low (not mean infection rate, but case severity rate). It means the virus is affecting some places (like care homes, hospitals), and some category of people (old and sick).

Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean the risk is high enough to keep people locked up. You can be ran over by a car, you can be robbed on the street, a lot of things happen to you if you do this or that, but the risk is low. If we ran our lives on bad things that 'can happen to you' we'd all be locked up indefinitely.

 

[serghei]

Social distancing is not the same with lock-down by the way. Nobody is absurd to say people don't need to be cautious, keep a safe line, avoid very crowded places. But prolonged lock-down is a pipe dream and should come to an end, and if some people don't realize it, they are in for a shock.

OK, so keeping people locked up for 1.5 months has slowed down the deaths and eased the burden of the health system. OK, that's splendid. So how do we do to allow people to resume to their life?

Hope for a vaccine another year like this? These people are smoking crack.

 

[El Gato]

We do know by now that, while it's not only the old and the sick, the risk for young healthy people is minimal. I think it's estimated as the risk of dying in a car accident or something like that. Who the hell stays at home for 6 months because he may be hit by a car while walking on the street?

Doesn't matter. You don't get to choose who you INTENTIONALLY subject to a health risk by leaving home.

Think about it. Me and my friends and my family have access to around 500-1000 people among relatives, friends, friends of friends, work collegues and friends and so on. In my case not even 1 people out of those roughly 500 contacts has fallen severely ill by this.

Anecdotal. Means nothing. Nor is it necessarily correct, because you can't track everyone in your network has transmitted to.

Neither I or my friends, or my family or my family's friends have heard of a serious corona case, and trust me, we've all been on the phones for hours every day discussing these things (somehow the discussion leads to these corona related topics). Only way that happens is if the effect of the virus on normal people is incredibly low (not mean infection rate, but case severity rate). It means the virus is affecting some places (like care homes, hospitals), and some category of people (old and sick).

Again, anecdotal evidence of nothing, but the fact that the folks you know didn't have severe reaction. That doesn't mean you're more or less likely to ultimately be the beginning, middle or end of the mortality chain.

Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean the risk is high enough to keep people locked up.

It is. You don't get to choose who you put at risk by being in the open acting as a transmission agent. Sit on your ass and stop moaning.

Social distancing is not the same with lock-down by the way. Nobody is absurd to say people don't need to be cautious, keep a safe line, avoid very crowded places.

Vague. What is a safe line? Is touching a piece of fruit in the supermarket safe when people aren't 'forced' to wear face masks?

OK, so keeping people locked up for 1.5 months has slowed down the deaths and eased the burden of the health system. OK, that's splendid. So how do we do to allow people to resume to their life?

Hope for a vaccine another year like this?

Yep. No other choice to do an en-masse legislation. Same as immigration measures are difficult to enforce on case-by-case basis and parties often take a blanket stance.

 

[serghei]

Anecdotal? And you giving me some example of some young person who suffers from COVID is what? For every young person who has it and suffers from it there are thousands who have it and don't even know it. That there can be exceptions and young people can fall ill from this? Absolutely. Nobody said exceptions can't happen.

But those are isolated cases, which are irrelevant in the broad specter of things, when analyzing the risk for a normal healthy adult when facing coronavirus infection. It is a fact that the healthy young adults are affected by coronavirus only in exceptional, isolated cases. And yet, you and others are advocating for prolonged lock-down that will affect these people's lives. And for what? Lock-down didn't help these countries protect the elderly in care homes. The virus was on a rampage in these places, lock-down or not. Every country already failed to tackle the virus, precisely because they acted as is the virus was as unanimously dangerous for everyone, no matter the group. It proved to be a costly mistake.

You call my arguments irrelevant. Yours are even more so. All you guys have is massive damage by the virus in hospitals and care homes, which nobody denies. You take that, and extrapolate it to the whole society, trying to justify these general measures, even if the virus doesn't pose serious threat except for a specific vulnerable group, with other cases being conveniently presented as some individual stories played out for pure dramatic effect. Every statistic shows the elderly are affected by far the most, while children and young adults aren't even likely to show any symptom. So what are we talking about here?

These people who make decisions have proven to be absolutely useless as setting measures that tackle the real problem. Their solution? Lock everyone up. If this coronavirus thing was a barometer to judge how good we are as a species at finding out solutions to problems, most countries failed big time. They don't have a clue what they're doing.

Let me tell you something, if you have an infection in a hand and you are a great doctor, you try to heal the infection. You don't pick up an ax and cut off your hand, so the infection can't spread to your organs. That will work, in the sense that you won't die, but to what cost? Dealing with the problem doesn't mean going after the harshest measure, just because it is the most likely to work and the easiest to take. You have to really do a balanced evaluation on what the effects are. Nobody did that, I'm sure.

 

[El Gato]

Anecdotal? And you giving me some example of some young person who suffers from COVID is what? For every young person who has it and suffers from it there are thousands who have it and don't even know it. That there can be exceptions and young people can fall ill from this? Absolutely. Nobody said exceptions can't happen.

It's not an anecdote. It's a true case, which is not an exception, because old people only suffering from it is not a rule. Minority of those who fall seriously ill suffer as much as the majority do.

There is no broader spectrum of things. The spectrum is that older are more susceptible to die, but the younger can die and are just as likely to transmit. It's really very simple. You don't want the virus anywhere. Not in your friends who can go fuck knows where and meet fuck knows who, or go to work give it to someone who has parents with underlying conditions.

You call my arguments irrelevant. Yours are even more so. All you guys have is massive damage by the virus in hospitals and care homes, which nobody denies. You take that, and extrapolate it to the whole society, trying to justify these general measures, even if the virus doesn't pose serious threat except for a specific vulnerable group, with other cases being conveniently presented as some individual stories played out for pure dramatic effect. Every statistic shows the elderly are affected by far the most, while children and young adults aren't even likely to show any symptom. So what are we talking about here?

Do you honestly not see the difference between severity and transmission? How do I explain this to someone who thinks risk areas are defined as those where people die i.e. only in hospitals and care homes?

 

[serghei]

It's not an anecdote. It's a true case, which is not an exception, because old people only suffering from it is not a rule. Minority of those who fall seriously ill suffer as much as the majority do.

There is no broader spectrum of things. The spectrum is that older are more susceptible to die, but the younger can die and are just as likely to transmit. It's really very simple. You don't want the virus anywhere. Not in your friends who can go fuck knows where and meet fuck knows who, or go to work give it to someone who has parents with underlying conditions.



Do you honestly not see the difference between severity and transmission? How do I explain this to someone who thinks risk areas are defined as those where people die i.e. only in hospitals and care homes?

I did not say only old people are suffering from this. I said young and healthy people can suffer from this too, but the risk is very very low. We live our lives surrounded by risk every day. And we still do things and live our life, regardless of that risk.

Don't go around words. Younger CAN DIE. If there's a 0,0001 risk of dying, you CAN DIE. It's just very very unlikely. Same situation as this. You embrace this idea that young people can die from covid, based on ultra minority of a few deaths per thousand infected. Statistically, those are negligible numbers. You don't make clear, ultra-severe and general decisions based on that.

You can't explain it, because you have no arguments. The pattern is clear. In cases of old people, the media focus on numbers, because the proportion of such people dying in this group is sizeable. In case of young people, it's obvious the media are trying to milk every drama from singular cases, because the number of cases is very low.

 

[Newcomer]

PSG most likely will get named champions.

Nothing sure about this. So far, with the different scenarii being discussed about how to determine relegation, promotion or european spot, there is not a single mention about crowning a champion. There are some clubs who would contest PSG title.

Also, remember that PSG should have been de facto crowned in 1993 after OM was caught for bribery and other criminal activities. However, no title has been given. Look at Italy and Calciopoli : titles have been awarded.

I'm almost sure they'll end the season without a champion

 

[BADGERBHOY]

Votes by clubs on a solution is only way forward.

The only alternative is associations say there are no promotion, no relegation and last years european qualifiers get those places again.

That wont happen.

That would mean Espanyol would be in the Europa League, which would be ridiculous

 

[El Gato]

I did not say only old people are suffering from this. I said young and healthy people can suffer from this too, but the risk is very very low. We live our lives surrounded by risk every day. And we still do things and live our life, regardless of that risk.

Don't go around words. Younger CAN DIE. If there's a 0,0001 risk of dying, you CAN DIE. It's just very very unlikely. Same situation as this. You embrace this idea that young people can die from covid, based on ultra minority of a few deaths per thousand infected. Statistically, those are negligible numbers. You don't make clear, ultra-severe and general decisions based on that.

You can't explain it, because you have no arguments. The pattern is clear. In cases of old people, the media focus on numbers, because the proportion of such people dying in this group is sizeable. In case of young people, it's obvious the media are trying to milk every drama from singular cases, because the number of cases is very low.

Not one sentence about transmission. But I have no arguments.

Dude, seriously, let's just.. ugh.. sigh.

 

[Mitchell1978]

Nothing sure about this. So far, with the different scenarii being discussed about how to determine relegation, promotion or european spot, there is not a single mention about crowning a champion. There are some clubs who would contest PSG title.

Also, remember that PSG should have been de facto crowned in 1993 after OM was caught for bribery and other criminal activities. However, no title has been given. Look at Italy and Calciopoli : titles have been awarded.

I'm almost sure they'll end the season without a champion

Not if they follow the example set by the Belgian League which now would be the best course of action for Ligue 1.

 

[serghei]

Not one sentence about transmission. But I have no arguments.

Dude, seriously, let's just.. ugh.. sigh.

If this has actual mortality rate as a severe influenza wave, as new studies are starting to show, transmission is not that important.

But hey, don't let me stop you, regurgitate the mainstream media arguments with no proof whatsoever.

My position is simple. I don't believe things just because they are told to me. Parading some isolated cases where some young guy got very sick from this is not going to make me generalize the threat and say it is likely young adults will be in reasonable risk. When probably this is so generally mild for these people that they don't even realize they got it.

I am not part of the category of people that don't require explanations to accept a message. I question everything. And when I smell manipulation and flimsy arguments, or media stories played for dramatic effect, I start to believe more and more that there is a lot of falsehood in the presentation of this coronavirus pandemic. It is made to look more generally dangerous than it is, probably to keep masses docile and obedient, so they will accept whatever stupid plans the politicians throw at them.

Makes sense. You control masses by making them fearful for their lives. Only way people will accept prolonged lock-down is if they're fed stories how this is so dangerous for all, presenting lock-down as the harm that needs to be done to avoid a greater harm. Without using manipulation as a mass-control tool, lock-down becomes very hard to maintain.

So, admitting coronavirus is a very very low risk for the average healthy adult, is basically making your job harder as a Government to put these people in lock-down. Because you would then have the very tough job of explaining to average Joe, who is under very low risk of getting seriously sick from corona, why he is not allowed to move. So, then, the best course of action is to convince average Joe that he needs to stay home because look what happens to other young people who get infected with corona -> insert dramatic individual, exceptional, case.

 

[El Gato]

If this has actual mortality rate as a severe influenza wave, as new studies are starting to show, transmission is not that important.

Aye. Have 99% infected and see how many people do NOT die. Why not.

Moron.

 

[serghei]

Aye. Have 99% infected and see how many people do NOT die. Why not.

Moron.

I'm too out of the box for you. You are one of those who would stay locked up for years, only to find out 10 years later how this was massively blown out of proportion. Not for the old and sick, here the risk is valid. Only area where coronavirus risk is accurately portrayed.