| Season Card update on 17:48 - Sep 30 with 2056 views | DaleiLama |
Struggling to imagine anything other than tougher restrictions ahead before things start to get better after that presser. Sucks. |  |
|  |
| Season Card update on 17:49 - Sep 30 with 2056 views | rochdaleriddler |
| Season Card update on 16:35 - Sep 30 by Dalenet |
were you not surprised we had sold 1478 season cards? |
I was , I meant about Tony Lloyd ! |  |
| |
| Season Card update on 15:53 - Oct 1 with 1691 views | DaleiLama |
| Season Card update on 17:48 - Sep 30 by DaleiLama |
Struggling to imagine anything other than tougher restrictions ahead before things start to get better after that presser. Sucks. |
Then this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/hea
Is it any wonder no one knows which way to turn? | |
| |
| Season Card update on 16:03 - Oct 1 with 1667 views | D_Alien |
Yup, away from other people we're not living with!!
It really is that simple. Avoid close contact with anyone not in your bubble as far as possible, and the rate of transmission will go down,and wear a mask if you're near them
Not sure why anyone would be confused by that? (Don't mean you, DL) [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 16:06]
|  |
| |
| Season Card update on 16:11 - Oct 1 with 1646 views | DaleiLama |
| Season Card update on 16:03 - Oct 1 by D_Alien |
Yup, away from other people we're not living with!!
It really is that simple. Avoid close contact with anyone not in your bubble as far as possible, and the rate of transmission will go down,and wear a mask if you're near them
Not sure why anyone would be confused by that? (Don't mean you, DL) [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 16:06]
|
Amen to that.
If 1 in 200 nationwide are infected (and I know some folk will know and either self-isolate or be too ill to attend a game so the following would be the worst case), it means that (rounded up) 11 people at a covid-restricted, maximum capacity home game at the COA would be infected. This of course doesn't allow for local variations to give a +/- slant to that 11 figure, but I would imagine Rochdale would be at least average if not above average based on recent news coverage. Puts it in perspective why games aren't being played. | |
| |
| Season Card update on 16:20 - Oct 1 with 1619 views | D_Alien |
| Season Card update on 16:11 - Oct 1 by DaleiLama |
Amen to that.
If 1 in 200 nationwide are infected (and I know some folk will know and either self-isolate or be too ill to attend a game so the following would be the worst case), it means that (rounded up) 11 people at a covid-restricted, maximum capacity home game at the COA would be infected. This of course doesn't allow for local variations to give a +/- slant to that 11 figure, but I would imagine Rochdale would be at least average if not above average based on recent news coverage. Puts it in perspective why games aren't being played. |
Sounds about right
I forgot to add... and wash yer hands when you get home! But that's a sensible thing to do after a trip to COA anyway  | |
| |
| Season Card update on 16:52 - Oct 1 with 1556 views | 49thseason |
| Season Card update on 16:11 - Oct 1 by DaleiLama |
Amen to that.
If 1 in 200 nationwide are infected (and I know some folk will know and either self-isolate or be too ill to attend a game so the following would be the worst case), it means that (rounded up) 11 people at a covid-restricted, maximum capacity home game at the COA would be infected. This of course doesn't allow for local variations to give a +/- slant to that 11 figure, but I would imagine Rochdale would be at least average if not above average based on recent news coverage. Puts it in perspective why games aren't being played. |
The games are being played, we are just not allowed to watch them "live"
Your extrapolation is interesting , but...you are of course assuming that
a) those numbers are entirely accurate and do not have a 0.8-4% false positive rate* and that
b) If the numbers are accurate that the distancing, hand cleaning, maybe even temperature testing fails to prevent any spread even if it doesn't involve being face to face for as much as 15 minutes?
If we test 200,000 a day and there are 2.4% (the number suggested in the lancet article below) false positives that's 4800 people being told to self isolate for no reason.
*"The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."
https://www.thelancet.com/jour
(published 29/09/20
Of course there may also be a similar rate of false Negatives
Can we really trust the numbers? |  | | |
| Season Card update on 16:58 - Oct 1 with 1539 views | SuddenLad |
Can you ask me one on the Peloponnesian Wars, 431 B.C. please? I might have a better understanding of that. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Season Card update on 16:59 - Oct 1 with 1534 views | James1980 |
| Season Card update on 16:58 - Oct 1 by SuddenLad |
Can you ask me one on the Peloponnesian Wars, 431 B.C. please? I might have a better understanding of that. |
Can we trust that date though?
On a more serious note how about instead of a refund we can get a credit against next year's Season ticket plus a free or discounted DRFC if we select that option. [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:02]
|  |
| |
| Season Card update on 17:02 - Oct 1 with 1527 views | D_Alien |
| Season Card update on 16:52 - Oct 1 by 49thseason |
The games are being played, we are just not allowed to watch them "live"
Your extrapolation is interesting , but...you are of course assuming that
a) those numbers are entirely accurate and do not have a 0.8-4% false positive rate* and that
b) If the numbers are accurate that the distancing, hand cleaning, maybe even temperature testing fails to prevent any spread even if it doesn't involve being face to face for as much as 15 minutes?
If we test 200,000 a day and there are 2.4% (the number suggested in the lancet article below) false positives that's 4800 people being told to self isolate for no reason.
*"The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."
https://www.thelancet.com/jour
(published 29/09/20
Of course there may also be a similar rate of false Negatives
Can we really trust the numbers? |
Pointless speculation
Take the precautions, reduce transmission, keep it simple
The gov has recognised it's got too messy and are introducing a much simpler 3-tier system for areas with different transmission rate. We all live and learn | |
| |
| Season Card update on 17:07 - Oct 1 with 1513 views | DaleiLama |
| Season Card update on 16:52 - Oct 1 by 49thseason |
The games are being played, we are just not allowed to watch them "live"
Your extrapolation is interesting , but...you are of course assuming that
a) those numbers are entirely accurate and do not have a 0.8-4% false positive rate* and that
b) If the numbers are accurate that the distancing, hand cleaning, maybe even temperature testing fails to prevent any spread even if it doesn't involve being face to face for as much as 15 minutes?
If we test 200,000 a day and there are 2.4% (the number suggested in the lancet article below) false positives that's 4800 people being told to self isolate for no reason.
*"The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."
https://www.thelancet.com/jour
(published 29/09/20
Of course there may also be a similar rate of false Negatives
Can we really trust the numbers? |
Yes - I missed off "in front of fans" of course!
At the minute, everything is an assumption isn't it? Everything is being extrapolated. The R rated is calculated by n different groups and an average is considered. Testing can give results all over the place and interpretation depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is.
From what I understand, the only 2 fundamental numbers that can really be relied upon is the hospital admission rate (with a true positive test) and the "death rate - the underlying death rate", but as DA pointed out the other day, even the underlying death rate numbers may now be skewed this year by the most frail passing away from "Covid complications" early on who may have lived a few more months and passed away anyway after Covid started.
Also, by the time the brown stuff has hit the fan based on hospital numbers it's probably too late.
Decisions have to be made on some basis and I'm sure those making them know a lot more about it than us! [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:09]
| |
| |
| Season Card update on 17:19 - Oct 1 with 1487 views | Dalenet |
| Season Card update on 16:59 - Oct 1 by James1980 |
Can we trust that date though?
On a more serious note how about instead of a refund we can get a credit against next year's Season ticket plus a free or discounted DRFC if we select that option. [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:02]
|
As suggested by many James. There is time yet. If we get to the end of the season and we haven't been allowed in, I can't imagine the club will think it is okay to retain the £105 paid by SC holders over and above the iFollow cost. But they won't know what to do until we get to the end of the season and see whether we have been allowed in. I'd much rather the club retained the money for now rather than had a mass of refund requests. | | | |
| Season Card update on 17:24 - Oct 1 with 1477 views | SuddenLad |
| Season Card update on 17:19 - Oct 1 by Dalenet |
As suggested by many James. There is time yet. If we get to the end of the season and we haven't been allowed in, I can't imagine the club will think it is okay to retain the £105 paid by SC holders over and above the iFollow cost. But they won't know what to do until we get to the end of the season and see whether we have been allowed in. I'd much rather the club retained the money for now rather than had a mass of refund requests. |
Yes and in all probability, if that scenario presents itself, current SC holders would effectively have £105 'credit' towards the cost of the next season card. Suits me fine. | |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Season Card update on 17:26 - Oct 1 with 1470 views | James1980 |
| Season Card update on 17:19 - Oct 1 by Dalenet |
As suggested by many James. There is time yet. If we get to the end of the season and we haven't been allowed in, I can't imagine the club will think it is okay to retain the £105 paid by SC holders over and above the iFollow cost. But they won't know what to do until we get to the end of the season and see whether we have been allowed in. I'd much rather the club retained the money for now rather than had a mass of refund requests. |
Even if the option was a credit and if you don't choose to renew next season, you get a refund. At least they wouldn't be paying out all the refunds now. | |
| |
| Season Card update on 18:24 - Oct 1 with 1379 views | judd |
| Season Card update on 17:07 - Oct 1 by DaleiLama |
Yes - I missed off "in front of fans" of course!
At the minute, everything is an assumption isn't it? Everything is being extrapolated. The R rated is calculated by n different groups and an average is considered. Testing can give results all over the place and interpretation depends on who you ask and what day of the week it is.
From what I understand, the only 2 fundamental numbers that can really be relied upon is the hospital admission rate (with a true positive test) and the "death rate - the underlying death rate", but as DA pointed out the other day, even the underlying death rate numbers may now be skewed this year by the most frail passing away from "Covid complications" early on who may have lived a few more months and passed away anyway after Covid started.
Also, by the time the brown stuff has hit the fan based on hospital numbers it's probably too late.
Decisions have to be made on some basis and I'm sure those making them know a lot more about it than us! [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 17:09]
|
What fan?
How's he or she got in? |  |
| |
| Season Card update on 18:39 - Oct 1 with 1351 views | boromat |
I've got an idea why couldn't credit have been offered against next season's ticket. That way the clubs could keep the money.
(It's like Morley's missed penalty all over again)
 | |
| |
| Season Card update on 19:06 - Oct 1 with 1316 views | James1980 |
| Season Card update on 18:39 - Oct 1 by boromat |
I've got an idea why couldn't credit have been offered against next season's ticket. That way the clubs could keep the money.
(It's like Morley's missed penalty all over again)
|
Oiii my suggestion had an added bonus to it plus the option to still claim a refund if they felt next seasons prices were not using the credit against. | |
| |
| Season Card update on 19:36 - Oct 1 with 1278 views | Nigeriamark |
| Season Card update on 16:52 - Oct 1 by 49thseason |
The games are being played, we are just not allowed to watch them "live"
Your extrapolation is interesting , but...you are of course assuming that
a) those numbers are entirely accurate and do not have a 0.8-4% false positive rate* and that
b) If the numbers are accurate that the distancing, hand cleaning, maybe even temperature testing fails to prevent any spread even if it doesn't involve being face to face for as much as 15 minutes?
If we test 200,000 a day and there are 2.4% (the number suggested in the lancet article below) false positives that's 4800 people being told to self isolate for no reason.
*"The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%."
https://www.thelancet.com/jour
(published 29/09/20
Of course there may also be a similar rate of false Negatives
Can we really trust the numbers? |
It's not clear in the lancet journal ( although I only skimmed it) but I think the false positive rate is only of tests that are positive overall excluding the negative tests i.e it is not 0.8 - 4% of all tests taken, just of those that are positive. Therefore if 10 % of all tests are positive then the number of false positives will be 0.8 - 4% of 10 % = 0.08 to 0.4% of all tests. In you other example it would be 200,000 x 10% x 2.4% = 480
Years ago I got a false positive on an AIDS test when I had a company medical. It ended up being because I had a flu jab just before. However I was told I had to wait up to 3 months before getting re-tested, or get a very expensive 100% certain test. I thought I would wait but then started getting all sorts of doubts about the missus, and because I told her she started getting all sorts of doubts about what I may have been up to. In the end I went and paid for the better quality re-test [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 19:41]
|  | | |
| Season Card update on 19:47 - Oct 1 with 1253 views | 442Dale |
It’s still quite hard to work out why lower non-league clubs can put on games with fans, with visibly less structure in place around where people sit/stand than we have planned at Dale. Recently both Scarborough and Whitby were told by PHE England that they couldn’t have fans, this has now been reviewed:
http://www.scarboroughathletic
Also, as shown by people on here and the NewBury, it’s still ok locally as well. |  |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:07 - Oct 1 with 1229 views | dingdangblue |
| Season Card update on 19:47 - Oct 1 by 442Dale |
It’s still quite hard to work out why lower non-league clubs can put on games with fans, with visibly less structure in place around where people sit/stand than we have planned at Dale. Recently both Scarborough and Whitby were told by PHE England that they couldn’t have fans, this has now been reviewed:
http://www.scarboroughathletic
Also, as shown by people on here and the NewBury, it’s still ok locally as well. |
I think the issues are that it has to be every professional club allowed fans or non at all. Whereas it doesn't seem unreasonable to us to have 1500 - 2000 fans congregating around Spotland and socially distancing inside the stadium if you look at some of the bigger Premier league stadiums there will be crowds of 15,000 - 20,000 people which is going to be a lot harder to manage. |  |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:12 - Oct 1 with 1214 views | boromat |
| Season Card update on 19:06 - Oct 1 by James1980 |
Oiii my suggestion had an added bonus to it plus the option to still claim a refund if they felt next seasons prices were not using the credit against. |
 | |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:27 - Oct 1 with 1192 views | 442Dale |
| Season Card update on 20:07 - Oct 1 by dingdangblue |
I think the issues are that it has to be every professional club allowed fans or non at all. Whereas it doesn't seem unreasonable to us to have 1500 - 2000 fans congregating around Spotland and socially distancing inside the stadium if you look at some of the bigger Premier league stadiums there will be crowds of 15,000 - 20,000 people which is going to be a lot harder to manage. |
Why does it have to be every club? As illustrated by that example, it should be done on an area by area/club by club basis. If certain measures are in place and PHE give the go ahead based on current numbers etc, then surely that’s the way forward?
Don’t even expect Dale to be one of those clubs right now due to how things are in Greater Manchester, but there will be some who should be able to be assessed. And if that means only 2000 attending a Premier League game in Brighton, so be it - they can be limited to lower levels if required too.
Don’t think it’s a case of there should be fans at games, more a clear path to when that may be considered using the “Tier” system mentioned and the obvious procedures used at clubs like Scarborough. [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 20:44]
| |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:47 - Oct 1 with 1139 views | dingdangblue |
| Season Card update on 20:27 - Oct 1 by 442Dale |
Why does it have to be every club? As illustrated by that example, it should be done on an area by area/club by club basis. If certain measures are in place and PHE give the go ahead based on current numbers etc, then surely that’s the way forward?
Don’t even expect Dale to be one of those clubs right now due to how things are in Greater Manchester, but there will be some who should be able to be assessed. And if that means only 2000 attending a Premier League game in Brighton, so be it - they can be limited to lower levels if required too.
Don’t think it’s a case of there should be fans at games, more a clear path to when that may be considered using the “Tier” system mentioned and the obvious procedures used at clubs like Scarborough. [Post edited 1 Oct 2020 20:44]
|
The Government haven't really given it much thought - its just been easier to just say "no fans allowed". There are more people and more risk of getting infected at the big supermarkets in every town each Saturday than at football stadiums. | |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:57 - Oct 1 with 1118 views | James1980 |
Fans being allowed to attend matches in the lower tiers, could be the catchment area of supporters. A non league club I expect won't have many fans from a particularly great distance from the ground. If EFL 1 & 2 open to supporters Championship and Premier League would demand to follow suit. Then you get fans criss crossing the country. | |
| |
| Season Card update on 20:57 - Oct 1 with 1118 views | DaleiLama |
| Season Card update on 20:47 - Oct 1 by dingdangblue |
The Government haven't really given it much thought - its just been easier to just say "no fans allowed". There are more people and more risk of getting infected at the big supermarkets in every town each Saturday than at football stadiums. |
It could be argued that food is essential and footy is non-essential. To some anyway!  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
