If the player tests positive, there will be no games for Waterford for most of August I'd say, including two in a row v Dundalk, League and FAI Cup.
Very worrying times for all concerned, the player especially, plus it could obviously have already spread and unknown to those who were in close contact.
#DundalkFC - First Irish club to win an away game in Europe (1963), only Irish club to win a game / points in Europa League Group Stage (2016).
No change in the 200 that can go to games. I think this sends clear message that the freedoms we have now in society are the maximum for the foreseeable future.
It's hardly surprising that this is the decision. The real fear is in allowing pubs and nightclubs open across the board. To a significant extent it would be a tough sell to allow 500 people at a LoI game while preventing pubs with much smaller but higher risk numbers trade. In most grounds 500+ people could attend, socially distanced and wearing masks out in the open with no more risk than people being in shopping centres. There would be a responsible attitude imo to make sure that there is no reason to overturn a decision. But we are seeing irresponsible gatherings that are slowing progress in general and delaying the moving through phases. As an aside the lack of drink related visits to hospitals is helping to both keep capacity available in the event of a surge and is also saving a serious pot of money, waiting times in EDs are down to dream levels and urgent scheduled lists are being cleared well ahead of what was timetabled. There are a few lines of thought on keeping things as they are currently and its not that having 500 people in Tallaght et al is a major risk to supressing covid. No cash, digital programmes, distancing at all points, compulsory masks, hand hygiene points, no bar or food points, outside etc, in a ground like Tallaght, or the Aviva a lot more than 500 could safely be accomodated and would be allowed only it would put noses out of joint when such levels of 'safety' couldnt be replicated in other sectors...200+ people beering up in a nightclub, not a hope of controling interaction/distancing/washing hands/on the pull with face masks on...
Has there been any word on the WatchLOI figures been mentioned?
Last edited by Nesta99; 04/08/2020 at 7:09 PM.
Poor decision by the government. I was in 2 of the Shopping Centers in Galway earlier today, and walked around the main streets/Eyre Square etc, to hold that 500 attending a GAA or LoI match is more risky that being in these places makes no sense. I suppose we have to wait until the rugger season starts, and schools open.
Really disappointed with the GAA on this (didn't expect much from the New FAI), for such a big organisation they seem to have little influence.
I dont think it was a poor decision but it was certainly calculated. If sporting crowds are allowed then the grounds for continuing to restrict pubs, for example, are less and would lead to challanges. But I agree with what you say on shops/streets where numbers there make restrictions in an open football ground seem daft. Until schools fully return and trends from that can be seen, there wont be any move to lift restrictions further. Its far more likely that things would be stepped back though more on specific areas as we have seen in other countries rather than nationwide.
I think regulations could be looked at in a case by case basis at the top level of sport in Ireland, like the GAA, rugby and the LOI. The likes of Tallaght stadium sat empty for Rovers v Harps on Saturday. Each stand could have housed 200 people comfortably.
Likewise in Finn Park last night, another 200 people could have gained entry to the ground and remained well distanced.
Separate entrances, separate stands, and facilities available should be looked at when deciding how many are allowed in a ground.
It's ridiculous, for example, that 200 people are all that's allowed into 80,000 capacity Croke Park..
Agreed. Instead of blanket bans, x amount of people per 1000 seats or square metres. Same opinion re: pubs. In Terryland, all 200 people had to go into the Comer Stand, the other stand completely closed. Maybe they would have to clean all the seats after?
Government is fighting enough fires already to allow interest groups to exempt themselves from CV19 restrictions. If things settle down a bit we might see percentage occupancy from next season subject to a H& S assessment, if there is a next season that is.Originally Posted by Bucket
But it's not about what each stand can hold.
It's about the turnstiles and the queues coming into/leaving the game and people gathering at the jacks/chipper at half-time as well.
Yes, one-size-fits-all doesn't really add up - but even with what you've said about suggested entrances (do Harps even have this for example?), it's not as simple as 200 people per stand. (Even allowing for the fact it'd probably be 100 max in the stand at the moment as the other 100 are on or around the pitch or in the dressing rooms in some capacity)
Last edited by pineapple stu; 05/08/2020 at 12:19 PM.
Chippers and Food outlets would just remain shut. Bring Sambos if your going to be hungry.
Social Distancing can be observed in ques outside supermarkets, so why not sports events. Just make sure people are aware they can/will be delays entering the ground.
You don't have 600 people queuing to get in at the one time for starters.
Well, maybe you do in Ikea, but the queue for that (which I know from bitter experience...) is longer than a football match, so that presents obvious issues ta an actual football match.
I'm not saying these issues are insurmountable. But it's not quite as simple as "Why can't each stand hold 200"?
I was talking about this with someone who does risk assessments for their job mainly chemical plants and breweries and what not and they were saying that the one size fits all is daft but the alternative is guidelines with organisations submitting proposals for opening following those guidelines but the problem with that is the government do not like doing that in any scenario for some reason even in normal times. The government don't like taking on the liability that comes with assessing each proposal and deeming them to be safe or not.
So while in theory for Tallaght for example if the social distancing means capacity is 1000 with 5 entrances you could put a plan in place that involves assigned sheats and arrival times because that plan would be stadium specific it would need it's own sign off whereas a one size fits all rule doesn't.
Don't know if that makes sense but the TLDR is the government don't want to have to assess and sign off on each individual plan because they don't want to incur the liability that brings
Id imagine having a few stadiums accessed and used for games would make it easier , ie Tallaght for Dublin clubs, Turners X for Cork & Waterford etc.The issue then would be if clubs preferred to stay at home BCD or go elsewhere and have fans.
I addressed your question in my next line that you left out.
Separate entrances/exit points for each stand.
Finn Park has this, of course. There are four exit points in the ground, two sets of turnstiles, but neither are in operation during covid. There was a separate gate used for fans, another for media last night. Two exit points weren't used at all, apart from one gate used as ambulance access.
My point is that 200 people could have been in the main stand in Finn Park last night alone. There could have been another 150 on a totally separate gate, and never in contact with the other side of the ground at all. Similar to Tallaght or Turners Cross, or any ground that can do similar.
This was mentioned before wasn't it? Tallaght for the Dublin Sides(and at a stretch Oriel Park), Turners Cross for Cork/Cobh/Waterford, Athlone for Galway/Athlone/Longford and the Brandywell for Derry/Harps/Sligo. (Or Sligo Showgrounds, which ever suits).
Well, I only quoted the first line, but I did refer to your subsequent point alright.
What about toilet facilities though? Is there facilities on both sides?
What about outside the ground? Does everyone walk up the one street and then veer off close to the entrance? If they do, well that would still potentially cause a crowd outside the ground. That would be more of an issue if there's narrow streets leading up to the ground (like in Lansdowne Road, for example).
And then there's the general tendency for a few hundred people going to the match to socialise, even in the stand. Yeah, you can put down stickers showing where they must sit - but the more people, the more chance they'll be sociable, and that's a problem right now.
There's lots of potential factors.
I guess to add to RH's point - liability is obviously a good issue, but how many assessment plans could the Government end having to do if they let all sports grounds (say) open up on an ad hoc basis? It could be very timely and costly.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 05/08/2020 at 4:39 PM.
Yep, toilet facilities on both sides of Finn Park, one at the clubhouse side and one on the gantry side.
Chestnut Road gate (Aldi side) and Navenny Street gate (clubhouse side) are two separate entrances altogether off two completely separate roads. Two car parks at either end of those roads, and no need for people to mix at either side.What about outside the ground? Does everyone walk up the one street and then veer off close to the entrance? If they do, well that would still potentially cause a crowd outside the ground. That would be more of an issue if there's narrow streets leading up to the ground (like in Lansdowne Road, for example).
That's where trust comes into it. For what it's worth, could be seen well from the WatchLOI cameras I'm sure, but the 200 in the ground last night all remained distanced bar the handful who were in with a family member.And then there's the general tendency for a few hundred people going to the match to socialise, even in the stand. Yeah, you can put down stickers showing where they must sit - but the more people, the more chance they'll be sociable, and that's a problem right now.
That's why I'm suggesting only at the top level. Inter county GAA games, LOI matches, Rugby provincials.There's lots of potential factors.
I guess to add to RH's point - liability is obviously a good issue, but how many assessment plans could the Government end having to do if they let all sports grounds (say) open up on an ad hoc basis? It could be very timely and costly.
Funny you mention fire as one of the solutions on the table is to utilise fire officers/health and safety systems that already exist. Safe holding capacity will take on a slightly different meaning. It certainly can be done without a huge implementation of new structures. The argument is also that examples can be set where larger gatherings can 'safely' take place for people to see and follow. With the constantly changing landscape though we all have to be flexible and adjust at short notice. There are undoubtedly communities and their local publicans that are in an entirely different situations in different areas. So it might be time to start looking to devolve decisions to Local Authorities/Garda Divisions - if they can be trusted to not capitulate to lobbying. There is also a sort of point of diminishing return in that if (mainly young) people continue to gather in unpolicable ways for example then the lesser of 2 evils might lessen restrictions. I have no doubt that in the weeks following the opening of bars and nightclubs, particularly where there are significant third level student populations, that there will be localised lockdowns. Its all so messy with understandable vested interests, but 10k in Croker, Aviva, 500 in each stand in tallaght, indeed the open nature of Oriel Park lends itself to reasonable attendance, grassy knoll especially.
Obviously this all needs almost military like precision planning, but as Stu mentioned there isnt a whole lot that is insurmountable with propper planning. People may think this naive but we have to look at things in the context of the next 2 years maybe. The most banjaxed system in the country is the health service. Still far from sorted but in a matter of weeks we have appointment times that are actually applied, rather than it be a very rough guide and the waiting for hours, already. Ambulance units spent more time tied up trying to hand over patients for what was an average of 90mins hanging about and not unusual to be 3 or 4 hours waiting to get a stretcher back and get back on the road, its now almost seamless with pre-admissions areas (for quick covid screening) and 20 mins ye can be back on the job. More people are using GP services than EDs appropriately. Staff are not taking 5 or 10 minutes here and there to chat, that adds up to a logjam over a day. There is a whole lot more too, like phoning patients 24hrs before appointments to get paperwork done so it only a signature next day, no crowded waitingrooms. Now I know that this isnt everyones experience especially when not able to access essential clinics during lockdown but as things are returning the new systems are holding! Its costing more but not as much as initially thought as people got back to putting the shoulders to the wheel. If this can be done with a thoroughly fooked organisation (and more to be implemented) with long term expectation of covid peaks and troughs then it is definitely possible in other areas.
The important thing is to consider that disruption will be medium to long term so the sooner we get organised meticulously, change our habits accordingly, the less likely we will be on a stop start from fortnight to fortnight. Its takes less time to scan a temp, couple of seconds, entering a ground than it does to search for flares and would be more successful in its aim.
Last edited by Nesta99; 05/08/2020 at 6:27 PM.
On the issue of trust - at the moment, I'm not sure how much I'd place in public trust to be honest. It's the most natural thing in the world to socialise. Do you trust people in pubs to stay socially distant as well? It's a similar logic. Not identical - no alcohol (unless people are pre-drinking of course) and a wider area - but it's still a very sociable arena for a lot of people to be at.
All that's fine - but in terms of just an office re-opening, the HSE have seven separate checklists with about 30 items on each one. There's a huge amount to go through. I'm sure there's plenty I haven't even thought of.
Even allowing for the rows your sporting restrictions would cause - is the LoI First Division bigger than the AIL Div 1 for example? Why should cricket or hockey or horse racing be excluded? - then you're still looking at 60 assessments. And as RH says - who signs off on it in the end? Who monitors it for continual compliance? Does that take resources away from places they'd be better off used?
It's far from ideal, but I can understand the approach being taken.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 05/08/2020 at 7:27 PM.
All very valid points Stu! At some point the public are going to have to be trusted, thats a given. As is the changing viral R rating and community prevalence also tbh. The obvious numbers in imo higher risk enviornments like shoping centres/IKEA, for example, indicates for me that a properly managed system can see the return of spectators at sporting events (minus alcohol, food etc). If there was strict zero tolerence for not isolating travelling in from abroad and strict tracing I'd probably be more fully in favour of ongoing full postponement of phase 4. The fly in the ointment again is the pub and especially nightclub situation which, no matter what is done elsewhere, will lead to additional clusters. I dont think that sport should be fully held back imo to add leverage to the reasons for restrictions on nightclubs eg. I do think that there would be a far higher level of compliance in football stadia among fans who care personally for clubs and fellow fans. I read recently (there are multiple studies of course) that 2 people in an enclosed room socially distanced and both wearing masks have about 1% risk chance of cross infection - I obviously cant back this up but outdoors it makes sense to me that the risk at the Aviva would be no worse than people wandering about St Stephens Green Shopping Centre in what are significant numbers.
I also agree that there are the issues that RH mentions on responsibility for decisions that lift restrictions especially in the event of a spike in cases so while complex, these are things that will happen, with no guarantee that circumstance will be any better in November say. Its my own opinion of course and I could be very wrong, or not aware of evidence that shows 2000 people in a 10k ground are more risk than a large shop with similar numbers. Hence why I think that decisions need to move in part to local public health officers, under guidance.
Its a round in circles type discussion with no right or wrong answers. Like today in a local Tesco I was impressed with the level of compliance on face coverings, I didnt see anyone without a mask. Later when I stopped in Applegreen off the M1 easily less than 50% were wearing masks and it was very busy with few free tables. Finding out why the difference in attitude would be interesting!!
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks