Different attitudes to sporting events as regards Coronavirus
By John Welford
@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
March 13, 2020 3:23am CST
I read that most major sports events in the United States have been suspended in response to the Coronavirus outbreak.
It is interesting that this policy has not been followed in my own country - the United Kingdom. The reasoning behind this is that if an infected person attends an event at which thousands of people are present, they are only likely to infect a handful of people, namely those standing or sitting very close to them, and not the whole auditorium.
The people in question are most likely to be friends or family members of the contagious person, and they could just as easily have been infected anywhere else that the group had been together, such as in the family home.
In other words, the benefit gained by banning an event is likely to be extremely small. The idea that taking this action is necessary to prevent massive spread of infection is therefore nonsensical.
What do you think?
8 people like this
10 responses
@topffer (42155)
• France
13 Mar 20
Actually the goal is to slow down the propagation of the virus to not overcrowd our hospitals like it is the case in Italy. To reach that point any meeting should be canceled. And I think we are not going far enough, as we forbid only the meetings of more than 1000 persons. The only nonsensical thing is to put profit before health in our scale of values.
3 people like this
.
@sprite1950 (30461)
• Corsham, England
13 Mar 20
I can see the reasoning behind that but I'm not so sure about keeping schools open. Children could spread the disease to many other children especially as their hygiene is not always that good. I suppose Boris is thinking about the parents that will have to stay off to look after them, including health workers, putting an even bigger strain on our already stretched NHS.
I don't think it matters much what we do. This virus is going to spread regardless.
3 people like this
@sprite1950 (30461)
• Corsham, England
13 Mar 20
@indexer Not much hope for me then as I have custody of my granddaughter 
@xFiacre (14784)
• Ireland
13 Mar 20
@indexer I don’t have full confidence in UK approach. I’d prefer to be on the other side of the Irish border right now where schools are closed and sporting fixtures are postponed. We’ve kept our learning disabled daughter off school - were fortunate that were in a position to do so.
1 person likes this
@Bensen32 (28658)
• United States
13 Mar 20
I can see your point to an extent, however what about the other people sitting close to them. I don't know about over there but here the seats are very close so if you have a stranger sitting next to you you are pretty close to them. The 3 hours of watching the event and they can catch it and then take it home with them and infect a bunch of other people before they even know it.
1 person likes this
@msdivkar (23356)
• India
13 Mar 20
I don't agree with the argument put forth in not banning the sporting events to avoid mass gathering, looking at the way this coronavirus infection spreads all over the world. It is not necessary that the person getting the infection through already infected one be a close relative or a friend. Two unknown persons do come together at such events looking at the crowds we witness in football matches in particular.
@Namelesss (3364)
• United States
13 Mar 20
I do think people should decide for themselves whether or not to attend an event. If your young(ish) and healthy and don't have an elderly person living with or relying on you why not go. But if you say work with the elderly that might be a bad idea. There is some merit to the rational in your post but I'm not the one to make a judgment call on its validity.
