Topic: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July (Read 49869 times)

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #135 on:** May 29, 2020, 02:52:58 PM »

You're right that I didn't do some of those things:

I haven't had any meeting invites in London to decline.
Why would I take your kid out of nursery? They're nothing to do with me

rickjames · « **Reply #136 on:** May 29, 2020, 02:55:29 PM »

Cam, please decline that meeting in London about taking your kid out of nursery.

I don't want to get political but I just feel we're due a second wave largely down to the actions of a moron who is obviously above the law

SLA · « **Reply #137 on:** May 29, 2020, 02:58:53 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on May 29, 2020, 02:48:12 PM

@SLA - any links to these probabilities? Not entirely sure I've seen any reports of the probability of opposing cricketers having COVID being 1 in 100 but I could be mistaken.

Anyway if that's a correct figure then that would mean out of the 45 matches played in the Wilts league each Saturday, approximately 9.9 players would be running around with COVID. Do you not see the issue with this...

Before this thread falls into disrepair like most lately, I believe what @Buzz has said sums it up perfectly. I too am off for a net shortly and will no doubt thoroughly enjoy it.

Let's all just be grateful we have our health unlike many others.

No, 1 in 100 is that's the probability of ANYONE at the ground in a random cricket game having the virus. ie if you have 100 games of cricket, in 99 of them, no-one will have the virus. In 1 game 1 person will have the virus. So in a league with 45 games, chances are none of the games will feature anyone with a virus anyway. (Not sure about Wilts specific statistics - although the south west is very low in general)

Do I see a problem? No I don't, seeing as we've known for several weeks now that the probability of outdoor transmission is basically zero. So unless you foolishly allow people into changing rooms and bars then there isn't a problem. Compared to pretty much everything else we're going to be allowed to do in the next few weeks: go to work, go to school, sit on a bus, take the tube, have an afternoon shopping, have a picnic in the park, get a takeaway, have your mates round for a bbq: cricket is far, far safer than any of these activities.

ONS release the data every week. If you follow virologists and epidemiologists on twitter, they often post links to their latest research. (I study this stuff for a living so am obliged to keep up to speed with the latest developments)

SLA · « **Reply #138 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:01:10 PM »

Quote from: rickjames on May 29, 2020, 02:55:29 PM

Cam, please decline that meeting in London about taking your kid out of nursery.

I don't want to get political but I just feel we're due a second wave largely down to the actions of a moron who is obviously above the law

If everyone had followed my example, we wouldn't even have had a first wave.

Honestly, the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding - put your hand up if you locked down in early March when it actually mattered. If not, you have zero right to criticise someone who did.

Neon Cricket · « **Reply #139 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:07:30 PM »

Quote from: SLA on May 29, 2020, 02:58:53 PM

No, 1 in 100 is that's the probability of ANYONE at the ground in a random cricket game having the virus.

How can you claim that the possibility of anyone at a ground during a completely random game of cricket being infected is 1 ground in 100 - that's just utter nonsensical fiction.

I'm out, that's enough CBF for this month 🤦🏻‍♂️

LEACHY48 · « **Reply #140 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:10:41 PM »

Quote from: SLA on May 29, 2020, 03:01:10 PM

If everyone had followed my example, we wouldn't even have had a first wave.

Honestly, the hypocrisy in this thread is astounding - put your hand up if you locked down in early March when it actually mattered. If not, you have zero right to criticise someone who did.

It's really interesting that you claim you locked down in early March, and infection rates are still at the same level as early March.

Yet everyone else is a hypocrite and idiot 😂

thecord · « **Reply #141 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:12:45 PM »

Our landlords still won't let us enter our pavilion or garage due to fear of reprisal should anyone contract the virus!
This means we haven't even been able to water the squares let alone consider a net

I think we are probably at the point where we could only play away matches no matter what start date as I don't think the pitch situation is retrievable at this late stage.

Jealous of all the clubs in better positions with better facilities that can lobby for earlier starts to the season and somewhat fearful of what effect all this will have long term on my club.

Neon Cricket · « **Reply #142 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:13:18 PM »

@SLA

To keep things balanced, using a bit of actual mathematics using your stats - at a 0.35% infection rate, you're talking roughly 0.077 players per 22 (assuming no spectators or non-playing attendees at all).

Times that by 100 matches, you're looking at around 7.7 infected players. Not 1.

Mpt7 · « **Reply #143 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:13:47 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on May 29, 2020, 03:07:30 PM

I'm out, that's enough CBF for this month 🤦🏻‍♂️

Good thing it is the 29th, see you again Monday!

Have a nice weekend

SLA · « **Reply #144 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:18:07 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on May 29, 2020, 03:07:30 PM

How can you claim that the possibility of anyone at a ground during a completely random game of cricket being infected is 1 ground in 100 - that's just utter nonsensical fiction.

I'm out, that's enough CBF for this month 🤦🏻‍♂️

Err basic maths?

SLA · « **Reply #145 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:19:40 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on May 29, 2020, 03:13:18 PM

@SLA

To keep things balanced, using a bit of actual mathematics using your stats - at a 0.35% infection rate, you're talking roughly 0.077 players per 22 (assuming no spectators or non-playing attendees at all).

Times that by 100 matches, you're looking at around 7.7 infected players. Not 1.

Round here it's 0.1%. And half will be symptomatic so won't attend.

Now redo your sums

imogzyboy · « **Reply #146 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:22:18 PM »

I love this forum at times and I get really confused with this forum at times, I�m sure I�m not the only one on here who works in the hospital, I�ve nurses throughout covid, I can honestly say In both opinion and statistically, cricket is not worth the risk just yet, we aren�t sure how it�s going to react next, and let�s be honest we can take every precaution possible that does not mean you�re not going to get it, I can say it�s scary how many people are asymptomatic, I know a random trial was done which consisted of fit and well people 500 people and 18 of them were fit and well and didn�t know just imagine if one of them was about to play Saturday cricket and passed it on, why bother taking the risk even if 1 person died from playing Saturday cricket surely that is 1 too many? Let�s play cricket when the time is right, I�m sorry to have been quite this drastic but it�s very annoying personally to see some of the comments on here, thinking everything is okay. ALL MY OWN OPINION

SLA · « **Reply #147 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:23:17 PM »

Quote from: LEACHY48 on May 29, 2020, 03:10:41 PM

It's really interesting that you claim you locked down in early March, and infection rates are still at the same level as early March.

Yet everyone else is a hypocrite and idiot 😂

Right, but at that point they were doubling every 10 days, now they're halving every 8 days. Big difference

Neon Cricket · « **Reply #148 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:23:45 PM »

Quote from: SLA on May 29, 2020, 03:19:40 PM

Round here it's 0.1%. And half will be symptomatic so won't attend.

Now redo your sums

Ok, let's do it again after you've changed the variables:

Assuming 22 players, as you cant play cricket without 22. We'll stick with no umpires/scorers/spectators.

22 players, 0.1% infection rate would be 0.022 players per game.

Aka 2.2 per 100. So still over the magic 1 you've dreamt up.

Want to change the variables again? Stop digging champ.

SLA · « **Reply #149 on:** May 29, 2020, 03:28:56 PM »

Quote from: Neon Cricket on May 29, 2020, 03:23:45 PM

Ok, let's do it again after you've changed the variables:

Assuming 22 players, as you cant play cricket without 22. We'll stick with no umpires/scorers/spectators.

22 players, 0.1% infection rate would be 0.022 players per game.

Aka 2.2 per 100. So still over the magic 1 you've dreamt up.

Want to change the variables again? Stop digging champ.

Can you not read? I've said this 3 times now. Only asymptotic players attend, which at an upper bound is 50%. So divide your 2.2 by half, admit I was correct in the first place, and apologise.

Author Topic: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July (Read 49869 times)

WalkingWicket37

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

rickjames

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

Neon Cricket

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

LEACHY48

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

thecord

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

Neon Cricket

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

Mpt7

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

imogzyboy

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

Neon Cricket

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July

SLA

Re: Professional cricket delayed till at least 1st July