UK government claim that Liverpool vs Atletico was ‘low risk’ was an assumption made without any scientific basis

Guardian investigate how Liverpool vs Atletico was allowed to go ahead

On Thursday, the Guardian’s David Conn has appeared on the Today in Focus podcast to offer his insight into how the Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid match in the Champions League was allowed to go ahead on March 11.

On that day, Atletico Madrid knocked Liverpool out of the Champions League at Anfield.

3,000 Atletico fans travelled to Liverpool to watch the last-16 Champions League second-leg, despite the fact that Spain were in the process of locking down society as the Covid-19 virus spread. Spain closed its schools on 10 March.

However, the UK were far slower in implementing quarantine measures.

Accordingly, the UK government allowed this Champions League game to go ahead, and these fans were allowed to travel from one of the epicentres of the virus at the time.

Thread: Many people have told @guardian they believe they were infected with Covid-19 at Liverpool v Atletico Madrid, Cheltenham or other major event the Government allowed up to 16 March.

The arguments for allowing them look flawed & contradictory.https://t.co/LiVofz9dnq

— David Conn (@david_conn) June 3, 2020

 

What the UK government said at the time about Liverpool vs Atletico & the Cheltenham festival

For the record, the Liverpool vs Atletico match was far from the only major event staged in the UK as Covid-19 was rapidly spreading around Europe.

Also in England, the Cheltenham festival was staged from March 10-13. While the Stereophonics held a concert in Cardiff the same week.

Why were these events allowed to go ahead? Writing in the Guardian, David Conn refreshed readers’ minds:

The justification still maintained by ministers for waving ahead that match, the Cheltenham festival, music concerts and other “mass gatherings” – before they were finally stopped on 16 March – is that they carried a “low risk” of people transmitting the virus.

SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies) scientists advise that although such events draw huge crowds, they involve little close human contact, partly because spectators are outdoors.

On 11 February, the SAGE sub-group SPI-M noted that “in most larger events, such as sports matches, attendees will come into close contact with at most a handful of people, so the risk to attendees is low.”.

“The risk to an individual from attending large events is generally no higher than in smaller events. In most larger events, such as sports matches, attendees will come into close contact with at most a handful of people, so the risk to attendees is low.”

— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) March 20, 2020

Watch what the UK government said about mass gatherings

Claim that Liverpool vs Atletico was ‘low risk’ was an assumption without any scientific basis

Here comes the stomach-turning gut-punch.

As we now know, staging these major events undoubtedly caused Covid-19 to spread around the UK.

Indeed, the Sunday Times have previously reported that 41 Covid-19 deaths have been traced to the Liverpool vs Atletico game.

Yet, while the British public might not even react to the news that the UK fudged the truth over the risks posed by staging these events, the Guardian now accuse SAGE of supporting the UK government’s position despite the fact that there was no scientific evidence to support them.

Let’s be clear: the Guardian say that the UK’s primary scientific body, charged with advising the UK government on health policy, decided that Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid was “low risk” even though there was no scientific proof of this.

In a chilling revelation, David Conn concludes that SAGE assumed that Liverpool vs Atletico was “low risk”. He reported:

That (low risk) claim seems to be based on assumptions, not on a researched examination of people’s movements at such events: the nationwide and international travelling, the eating, drinking, shopping, and all-day cramming together involved in a modern sporting or cultural event.

The Guardian asked the Government Office for Science, which represents SAGE, if the advice was based on detailed scientific research. It did not respond.

Let’s be clear: the UK government and SAGE have yet to show nay scientific evidence supporting their “low risk” conclusion.

 

Project Restart protocols expose Liverpool vs Atletico ‘low risk’ claim

The Premier League is now gearing up to restart on June 17.

Much has been made about the safety measures which have been implemented to make sure football can restart without Covid-19 infection fears.

Premier League clubs have been forced to train while following social distancing guidelines, while no fans will be allowed to attend games when the action gets going again.

For the record, in the latest round of Premier League test results revealed on Wednesday, Tottenham confirmed that one employee turned up one positive case.

Yet, for David Conn, the comparisons between the current Project Restart health protocols and the advice from the UK government on March 10 that the Liverpool vs Atletico game was “low risk” cannot be reconciled.

Speaking on the Today in Focus podcast, David Conn slammed the UK’s government’s leadership, arguing:

To think, ‘oh well, we can let thousands of people turn up to these events knowing that some will be infected’ – which (was) the advice (of the UK government)… And therefore, in effect, people will become sick and some people will die, seems to be an inversion of the normal concern for public health.

Here’s just such a blatant contradiction: the government is still sending, in its response to this work which we’re doing now, they’re still saying (Liverpool vs Atletico) was a low risk event, that there a low risk of transmission.

But when football restarts… there will be no crowds. They are even worried about a few people crowding around outside the stadiums. 

How can it be low risk? Why don’t they allow 54,000 people back into Anfield again if it was low risk?

 

David Conn on social media

The argument that major events carried ‘low risk’ of transmitting the virus (disputed by other scientists) was anyway irrelevant;

The Government wasn’t stopping anything at that time, low or high risk: all schools, workplaces, pubs, sports etc were told to continue as normal.

— David Conn (@david_conn) June 3, 2020

The aim, as stated by Sir Patrick Vallance and others, was to allow a very large number of people to be infected and recover, to attain ‘herd immunity’;

Prof Neil Ferguson had predicted that under the plan, to gradually bring in ‘mitigation’ measures, 250,000 people would die.

— David Conn (@david_conn) June 3, 2020

If major events with huge crowds are ‘low risk’ during a pandemic, it’s strange that as sport is scheduled to return now, no crowds are to be allowed…

There are health concerns expressed now even about small numbers of people gathering outside without social distancing.

— David Conn (@david_conn) June 3, 2020

It will never be known how many people became critically ill or died due to the spread of the virus from major events.

But in normal times huge efforts are made to protect safety, and life.

Here, people appear to have knowingly been put at risk, with awful results.

Ends.

— David Conn (@david_conn) June 3, 2020

 

Guardian speak to one Liverpool fan who fears he gave his now-deceased dad Covid-19

On the ‘Today in Focus’ podcast, Liverpool supporter Simon Renoldi told his story about attending the Atletico game.

Simon Renoldi revealed how he believes he contracted Covid-19 at the match, and subsequently his father died which apparent symptoms of the virus.

Listen to Simon Renoldi’s heart-wrenching story on the podcast.

 

Also see: Carlo Ancelotti agrees with Jurgen Klopp: Playing Liverpool vs Atletico Madrid was ‘criminal’.

Liverpool talks to sign Barcelona’s Ousmane Dembele revealed by Gianluca Di Marzio.

from Football (soccer) greatest goals and highlights | 101 Great Goals - Feed https://ift.tt/2AFm3b7