COVID-19 at clubs

[CAMiller]

Oddly enough Ive just had a chat with a mate on scientific analysis (earlier today before this thread came up). I was interested in how Eng Cricket is using it for team selection (bits around the moneyball theory). He explained the general principals as he understood it. Im doing my research to batter Brindilar later - lol.

As I understand it a key part of analysis is data collection and criteria. I think the implication being we need to compare the same data collection and criteria. Stats taken for footballers may be completely different to how its taken for the wider community. It may give a totally false comparison.

Not claiming to be an expert btw; just my thoughts and adding to the message board debate.

Well in a situation where the 'population' are supposed to be taking extra precautions and under intense scrutiny like professional football you would expect the infection rate to be much lower than it is 'in the wild' and that would appear to be the case. General rates I've seen are around 1 in 10 of those tested.

[Pattylallacks2]

Well in a situation where the 'population' are supposed to be taking extra precautions and under intense scrutiny like professional football you would expect the infection rate to be much lower than it is 'in the wild' and that would appear to be the case. General rates I've seen are around 1 in 10 of those tested.

But aren't footballers tested as a matter of routine, whereas in the wider world a significant proportion of the population only get tested when the are displaying potential Covid symptoms?

[CAMiller]

But aren't footballers tested as a matter of routine, whereas in the wider world a significant proportion of the population only get tested when the are displaying potential Covid symptoms?

Yes. So if you tested the entire population on a similar basis do you think the infection rate would be more or less than 1 in 31. I'd guess that it would be more than 1 in 31.

[WanChaiMiller]

But aren't footballers tested as a matter of routine, whereas in the wider world a significant proportion of the population only get tested when the are displaying potential Covid symptoms?

EFL are going to regular 2 tests a week from next week paid for by the players union.

[Pattylallacks2]

Yes. So if you tested the entire population on a similar basis do you think the infection rate would be more or less than 1 in 31. I'd guess that it would be more than 1 in 31.

But the estimates from the "experts" is that it is 1 in 50. You may be closer to the mark but as you say, that is just a guess.

[CAMiller]

But the estimates from the "experts" is that it is 1 in 50. You may be closer to the mark but as you say, that is just a guess.

I agree. In the US over 20M have tested positive out of a population of 400M which is 1 in 20 and that's assuming non of the remaining 380M are positive.

[South Coast Miller]

Roll on that ruddy jab! I'm not fussy which one.

[Pattylallacks2]

I agree. In the US over 20M have tested positive out of a population of 400M which is 1 in 20 and that's assuming non of the remaining 380M are positive.

Not sure where you are getting your stats from Cam. Most sources I've looked at put the population at 332M

[CAMiller]

Not sure where you are getting your stats from Cam. Most sources I've looked at put the population at 332M

Just a lazy guess as I knew it was >300M and was assuming it might be closer to 400M as Donny never built his wall So at least 1 in 17 then and probably much worse.

[wrinkly]

Yes. So if you tested the entire population on a similar basis do you think the infection rate would be more or less than 1 in 31. I'd guess that it would be more than 1 in 31.

1 in 50 of UK population have the infection. This is based on sample tests of all the population not just people with symptoms. This rises to 1 in 30 in London